Sorry, this information comes from Faeit. But i think it needs a thread to see if anyone knows something.

http://natfka.blogspot.com.es/2018/01/new-model-coming-feb-24theisenhorn.html

What do you think?

its faeit from an anom source, so I realy doubt it. If true it would be great, but I think they've mistaken the book for a model.

Black library had a model once for him. It could be a combo with the book to increase sales however Eisenhorn is no where near the timeline of heresy or current 40k for him to have playable rules unless he’s a demon mini now.

gungo wrote:
Black library had a model once for him. It could be a combo with the book to increase sales however Eisenhorn is no where near the timeline of heresy or current 40k for him to have playable rules unless he’s a demon mini now.

Minor amounts of handwavium can get him nto into 8th Edition 40k (which I think is about ~100 years into the future of 7th Edition 40k).

1. Juvenat treatments combined with extensive augmetics have extended his life far past a baseline human.
2. A warp transit gone wrong brought him 100 years into the future.
3. To buy himself some time to get the TRUE heretics, he made a deal with a warp entity to gain additional lifespan.
4. He's just super old and cranky. Seriously, the average lifespan for a baseline human seems to vary from a few decades to a few centuries depending on how many resources you can bring to bear on keeping yourself alive.

thread title got me excited for an actual model, link to a picture made me sad

gungo wrote:
Black library had a model once for him. It could be a combo with the book to increase sales however Eisenhorn is no where near the timeline of heresy or current 40k for him to have playable rules unless he’s a demon mini now.

Who knows? The third trilogy still needs to be written for two thirds, whenever the feth he gets around to fething writing it already, so anything can still happen.

gungo wrote:
Black library had a model once for him. It could be a combo with the book to increase sales however Eisenhorn is no where near the timeline of heresy or current 40k for him to have playable rules unless he’s a demon mini now.

You know you don't need character to be alive in current time to have rules and gw has long long history of such rules

tneva82 wrote:


You know you don't need character to be alive in current time to have rules and gw has long long history of such rules

Exactly.

I mean, there's no way Marbo is running around post-Indomitus Crusade, right?
And Aun'va and Tycho have been dead for ages, but we're still allowed to play with their models.

I don't see a character being dead in whatever current year the story is taking place as being a sound argument against their getting a model.

Aun'va was killed but they also immediately ruined it by giving him body doubles/holograms.

Yarrick is much older than Eisenhorn and also still around in 8th, so don't worry about that. Tau characters are also still around despite being long past the maximum lifespan for their species. In the grim darkness of the far future, age is nothing but an irrelevant number. As long as the plots needs Eisenhorn, there will be Eisenhorn.

I'd certainly love to see an Eisenhorn model, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, there's the excellent one from Artel_W

25 euros. 24 february

yeahhhh

What is that Primaris SM thing? New book? Or model box?

 Irbis wrote:
What is that Primaris SM thing? New book? Or model box?

Looks like a notebook.

Eisenhorn looks great!

That Eisenhorn looks way better than the 54mm version. Looks fantastic.

...

The 54mm model is based on the older Eisenhorn, a couple of centuries down the road.

This model is based on young Eisenhorn, still in his forties or so IIRC, before it all went to gak in a massive way.

maybe also for use in necromunda, I said about it a month or two ago.

"Mate of mine was telling me there are plans for an Inquisitor warband in the near future, has anyone else heard this?"

didnt realise it was this near future!

 Formosa wrote:
maybe also for use in necromunda, I said about it a month or two ago.

"Mate of mine was telling me there are plans for an Inquisitor warband in the near future, has anyone else heard this?"

didnt realise it was this near future!

Hmmm, you've got me thinking... Perhaps I'll have an use for that Deathwatch Artemis mini now, too!

Okay that doesn't look like he's modern day 40k for SURE unless Inquisitor game was already in what is current 40k!

That model is def on first 2 book era rather than post-3rd book look.

So yeah if it's 40k usable it's historical SC. That or necromunda model. Either way I'm sooooo tempted despite being currently 30k model only buyer. One of my favourite book series in BL period!

OMG it is real. An Eisenhorn mini. And it looks awesome!

The model (probably) looks great. Will there be rules?

Looks great. Probably in Resin, but hoping for Plastic

Awesome!

for those that dont have acces to imgurl?

It looks like he has hair, so it's the younger xenos book version of him.

From what I can see of him, it seems the model is based on this artwork:

The head is slightly different, but everything else appears almost exactly the same. I guess this is also the most well-known picture of Eisenhorn that other portrayals (like the game) are also based on, so it seems fitting.

There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

Do we know who the sculptor is? Is it going to be resin or plastic?

This has kinda rekindled my want for a Pontus glaw/kanja the sharp model

 Elbows wrote:
There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

The company that makes that produce miniatures that are very nice technically, but have completely the wrong proportions for 40K models if you care about that kind of thing. I do, so this I will need to grab. It better not be limited in number or location

 Formosa wrote:
This has kinda rekindled my want for a Pontus glaw/kanja the sharp model

FWIW Glaw already got a model in a BL diorama with him and Eisenhorn.

I'm terrible with cameras, but even I know to wait for the thing to focus before hitting the button.

Yikes...

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
It looks like he has hair, so it's the younger xenos book version of him.

Malleus actually, he doesn't get that staff until the second book.

Its a model version of the cover to the Omnibus (At least the printing I have)

Yes, young Eisenhorn by Karl Koppinski Clint Langley (oops!), but given the equipment on display, it's during the events of Malleus, as he didn't have the staff in Xenos.

 Elbows wrote:
There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

That's nice, I prefer to buy the version from the company that actually owns the IP they're using - and also the model that actually fits in with the GW aesthetic.

Eisenhorn, huh? Nice.

warhammer community now has an artical about the mini, it will have rules in the box. So thats a no for the codex(personaly wasn't expecting one). https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/29/black-library-celebration-coming-soongw-homepage-post-3/

mini is resin and will have rules in the box

So he's a store exclusive. Interesting.

Lovely sculpt, digging that he has a proper compact bolt pistol as in the novel.

Nice model. Fairly good duplicate of art as well. Collar shorter(or head taller) and funnily enough shoulder pads looks like smaller than in art. That's weird for GW with their huuuge shoulder pads One would expect reverse!

 Kanluwen wrote:
So he's a store exclusive. Interesting.

So he'll also be available to order online. That's now confirmed by the GW web team.

Love Inquisitors so yes to that model for me!

Looks really good. The shorter collar and smaller pauldrons is really an improvement as well.

It's really interesting just how much this model resembles the Inquisitor scale miniature from 2001, and when you compare photos of the two miniatures it's difficult to tell that they're in different scales.

I like the model but the smaller collar and pauldrons exaggerate the size of the head. Hopefully it's just the picture and it isn't as out of scale IRL.

@ Zingraff
I loved those old 54mm Inquisitor models and I wished they released a young Eisenhorn (from the artwork above) along with the older one they did.

Also, Black Library released a limited edition 30mm Eisenhorn diorama way back when. The model being discussed here looks so much better, IMO.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/29/black-library-celebration-coming-soongw-homepage-post-3/


,, Mini is made of resin.

40k rules included !

 Myrthe wrote:
I like the model but the smaller collar and pauldrons exaggerate the size of the head. Hopefully it's just the picture and it isn't as out of scale IRL.

It probably only looks bad if blown up to that size and placed next to the more realistically scaled drawing. Heroic proportions really only work at their native size. If you don't have a problem with other GW models, I don't think you'll have a problem with Eisenhorn.

That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Do we know what kind of resin? Do they still do finecast, or is it all FW resin nowadays?

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

Do we think that the pink skull in the base is to represent the demon from Malleus?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
This has kinda rekindled my want for a Pontus glaw/kanja the sharp model

FWIW Glaw already got a model in a BL diorama with him and Eisenhorn.

that doesnt look like a GW model, the one I just checked, looks 3rd party, and the models are pretty awful lol


I want this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mace_ace wrote:
Do we think that the pink skull in the base is to represent the demon from Malleus?

Profaniti?

 Formosa wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
This has kinda rekindled my want for a Pontus glaw/kanja the sharp model

FWIW Glaw already got a model in a BL diorama with him and Eisenhorn.

that doesnt look like a GW model, the one I just checked, looks 3rd party, and the models are pretty awful lol


I want this

We all do mate. Most of the BL diorama models were made by trainee sculptors and it does show on a fair few of them.

Haighus wrote:That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Do we know what kind of resin? Do they still do finecast, or is it all FW resin nowadays?

If it's coming from GW, it'll be finecast. The more resent finecast models like Veridyan and Slambo are much better than older finecast, though it does still have its issues.

Grimtuff wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

I always have issue with the paint flaking on resin and finecast models (one of the issues I mentioned above) regardless of the type of primer I use. It's also tough for me to get resin/finecast to bond to plastic if I'm trying to kitbash with it.

Probaly not washing enough. At least my 30k armies don't flake

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

It is definitely more annoying and requires more work to make stable joins than plastic. Also often far more brittle and fragile. I vastly prefer plastic when it is high quality. I've only come across a very few resins that were relatively easy to work with, Anvil Industry in particular. Vic minis is decent.

Otoh resin details are better and for characters cheaper than plastics. You would propably be looking some 5 pounds more with less details

tneva82 wrote:
Otoh resin details are better and for characters cheaper than plastics. You would propably be looking some 5 pounds more with less details

I dunno. With the amount of crisp detail they can get onto GW grade plastic models nowadays, it really isn't noticeable for someone of my mediocre painting skills. Also, it doesn't really help if the resin has poor QC like finecast used to.

Price is a valid point, but this is supposed to be 25euro anyway? That is about £20, which is well within the price range they have for individual human-sized plastic characters. I think the price would likely be similar, because the mark-up is so high anyway.

Resins are okay. They've come a long long way. They can be a bit brittle and the mold injection points are a pain, but they can be a little more 3D than styrine without a lot of extra pieces. It definitely works better on larger stuff though. The more bulk a model has the better.

 BrookM wrote:
Lovely sculpt, digging that he has a proper compact bolt pistol as in the novel.

But no trigger discipline

 Geifer wrote:

 Myrthe wrote:
I like the model but the smaller collar and pauldrons exaggerate the size of the head. Hopefully it's just the picture and it isn't as out of scale IRL.

It probably only looks bad if blown up to that size and placed next to the more realistically scaled drawing. Heroic proportions really only work at their native size. If you don't have a problem with other GW models, I don't think you'll have a problem with Eisenhorn.

It's actually the other way around in this case. The head on the miniature is the appropriate size, while on the illustration the head significantly smaller than it should have been.



When you draw (or sculpt) a man, the total height ought to be 8 times the size of his head. I'd say the miniature is a lot closer to that, than the illustration.

That mini is five heads tall, though.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

That's nice, I prefer to buy the version from the company that actually owns the IP they're using - and also the model that actually fits in with the GW aesthetic.

+1. I'm no hard-line GW loyalist, but I'm not a fan of making your business from copying others' IP rather than making your own designs.

Re: scale, they're at opposite ends and neither is very realistic. The illustration has a tiny head and arms like tree trunks; the model is chunky like most of GW's stuff, with giant head and hands/weapons. Unless heinously expensive, I'd like to pick one up, though I'll probably trim his head down a little so it doesn't look like a space marine is trying to fit into his coat.

Looks great, but I will not be shelling out 30-40 US for a single model as is the current GW trend.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

That's nice, I prefer to buy the version from the company that actually owns the IP they're using - and also the model that actually fits in with the GW aesthetic.

+1. I'm no hard-line GW loyalist, but I'm not a fan of making your business from copying others' IP rather than making your own designs.

Re: scale, they're at opposite ends and neither is very realistic. The illustration has a tiny head and arms like tree trunks; the model is chunky like most of GW's stuff, with giant head and hands/weapons. Unless heinously expensive, I'd like to pick one up, though I'll probably trim his head down a little so it doesn't look like a space marine is trying to fit into his coat.

I take it then that you have never purchased a Necron, Genestealers, the new sly marbo or bought the Ciaphis Cain book.Gaunts a bit shaky in places as well, The AoS new planes have an air of familiarity as well, also steam punk dwarfs ring a bell as well.

Anyway I am trying to say people in giant glass mentions should not chuck stones.

As a more on topic aside The New GW Gideon and he blood raven chapter master only exist so that GW can legally chase Artel so you should thank them really.

I'm not saying I disagree with responding to concepts or even making overt references to them. I don't like derivative work, and if something's obviously derivative without proper acknowledgement of it then yes, I actually do consider that a mark against it. It takes something particularly insightful for me to consider anything like fan art for sale anything other than a shallow cash grab.

There's also a difference between being derivative and just blatantly cashing in on someone else's IP. I don't particularly like GW as a company, but I do respect their right and desire to protect their IP because once you start questioning the merit of something in its protection, you get into dangerously subjective arguments.

Homage and inspiration aren't the same thing as IP theft.

The illustration has some ludicrous proportions and the miniature looks more realistic to me, if anything. It's a cool mini but I've never even read an Eisenhorn book so doubt I'll shell out. Cool for those that are fans though.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

It is definitely more annoying and requires more work to make stable joins than plastic. Also often far more brittle and fragile. I vastly prefer plastic when it is high quality. I've only come across a very few resins that were relatively easy to work with, Anvil Industry in particular. Vic minis is decent.

Well, the best resin for conversions - for me - was the old FineCast. Far better than plastic, just like some kind of rubber you could easily work with a scalpel - I scratched out a whole head out of a model and replaced it with another (uhm... a servo-skull) without ruining the hairdress. Had it's drawbacks though (long and thin parts) and the quality control was awful.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

It is definitely more annoying and requires more work to make stable joins than plastic. Also often far more brittle and fragile. I vastly prefer plastic when it is high quality. I've only come across a very few resins that were relatively easy to work with, Anvil Industry in particular. Vic minis is decent.

Well, the best resin for conversions - for me - was the old FineCast. Far better than plastic, just like some kind of rubber you could easily work with a scalpel - I scratched out a whole head out of a model and replaced it with another (uhm... a servo-skull) without ruining the hairdress. Had it's drawbacks though (long and thin parts) and the quality control was awful.

That is fair, the softness was useful in this regard. I think I tend to find resin too soft and fragile/bendy, or too hard to work with, and often brittle. The sweetspot seems to be hard for companies to hit.

 Irbis wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Lovely sculpt, digging that he has a proper compact bolt pistol as in the novel.

But no trigger discipline

From art in a day when that was trigger discipline! Well, maybe not that far back......
I'm excited by this one. Love some of the inquisition miniatures. Hope to pick this one up two. Now just need a plastic gun cutter....

That is an awesome model, but it's a shame what it'll be inevitably priced at.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
That is an awesome model, but it's a shame what it'll be inevitably priced at.

$35 for a model in, probably, a presentation box with the rules included(the rules included part is 100% confirmed)?

I mean sure, it could be cheaper--but it's not that bad for what is effectively a limited edition model.

 EnTyme wrote:
Homage and inspiration aren't the same thing as IP theft.

And most people don't have a scooby what actually constitutes IP theft. Hint - 99% of "third party ripoffs" do not qualify.

Well, there are legal and moral answers to that question, which aren't always the same.

I’m just glad Gw is finally releasing an Ordo xenos inquisitor.
Cortez is ordo malleus
Greyfax is ordo heretic (as well as Karamazov)
there was no xenos inquisitor (outside Solomon lok from fw)

So I’m interested in what his aura would be

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Well, there are legal and moral answers to that question, which aren't always the same.

Yes, the moral answer is even more permissive than the legal one, since the legal one has been distorted by almost a century of lobbying and marketing by self-interested corporations. Seriously I think one of the most interesting time travel scenarios I can think of would be to take a modern "angry artist" back to speak to the folk who came up with the concept of protecting artistic works, I don't know which would be more disgusted by the other

The Eisenhorn miniature is actually more like 7 heads tall, at least when you measure one of the two leaked photos in this thread. The other photo makes the head look bigger, but that's likely due to the camera angle and other optics.

Guys do you remember the old days when GW copied someone others property before it was cool ? Think about some of the robots in their range that look like Battletech stuff or Robotech (Slocombe's Warbots limited Release)...they had to take it down but sold these until they get problems...think about some never released Star Wars Storm Troopers or others... Please dont judge theThird Party guys sometime they are the better creators...

The Star Wars stormtroopers weren't rip-offs. They were test pieces when they were considering applying for the licence to make official Star Wars miniatures.

Anyway, your logic is flawed; just because GW used to do it doesn't make it OK for someone else to do it now.

If I'm being honest, I'll pick this up as an homage to the books, and to celebrate the new one.

Abnett brought the Inquisition to life in a way that no other author has.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Anyway, your logic is flawed; just because GW used to do it doesn't make it OK for someone else to do it now.

Yep. The big boy doing something bad doesn't justify it, and if you do it back to him, that doesn't make your action right, either.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Anyway, your logic is flawed; just because GW used to do it doesn't make it OK for someone else to do it now.

Yep. The big boy doing something bad doesn't justify it, and if you do it back to him, that doesn't make your action right, either.

Except, as established, it's almost all entirely legal, and even most of the technicalities beyond that aren't "bad" unless you're operating to a warped perception of what IP law should be based almost entirely on the lobbying efforts of Disney and corporate industry groups. Yes, even most of what GW used to get up to, while often painfully unoriginal, was not actually some monstrous affront to the gods of creativity.

Look, I totally get that modern IP law is largely founded on abusive consolidation of power, but that doesn't stop there being an ethical problem with stealing people's gak. As someone who makes a living off of my creative work, y'know what? It sucks when I've occasionally had people steal stuff I've done, and it doesn't matter when it's not even actually hurting me: they took something of mine, without permission, for nothing other than their profit. It's not an abstract thing that only happens to faceless monolithic companies.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Look, I totally get that modern IP law is largely founded on abusive consolidation of power, but that doesn't stop there being an ethical problem with stealing people's gak. As someone who makes a living off of my creative work, y'know what? It sucks when I've occasionally had people steal stuff I've done, and it doesn't matter when it's not even actually hurting me: they took something of mine, without permission, for nothing other than their profit. It's not an abstract thing that only happens to faceless monolithic companies.

You evidently don't get my point, since the first thing you do after saying so is deploy terms like "stealing" to describe activity that has only been come to be thought of as such by some exactly because of the deliberate Overton Window-shifting work of faceless monolithic companies. As I said, taking a modern "creative" back to speak to the people who originated the idea of IP would be hilarious, your mindset would be utterly alien to them, because they recognised that human creativity is fundamentally an iterative process and legal protection for "intellectual" property was a necessity driven by the need to give their labour value under capitalism that should be as minimal as possible.

We're not talking about recasting, or printing shared PDFs of GW's publications to sell, or otherwise bootlegging GW's actual products. We're talking about people drawing on artworks or descriptions in novels(which themselves often draw heavily on prior imagery both in terms of material that's entered into the commons and in terms of homages to other established IPs that absolutely have not) to inform their own creative endeavours in a different medium. If IP law had remained free of corporate interference, it's likely that huge swathes of GW's intellectual "property" would already have transitioned into the public domain(and in fact there's a solid argument to be made that much of it is already free for others to use, given much of their work should really be considered under Design Rights rather than Copy Right law, it's just that nobody has had the money and motivation to take them to court in the UK to prove it). Just as huge swathes of the material GW themselves drew from when creating their settings would be.

People keep saying that comparing the two isn't valid because "two wrongs don't make a right", but the argument being made is neither of them is wrong, one of them is just hypocritical.

Redacted by order of the Inquisition

=][=

 Yodhrin wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Well, there are legal and moral answers to that question, which aren't always the same.

Yes, the moral answer is even more permissive than the legal one, since the legal one has been distorted by almost a century of lobbying and marketing by self-interested corporations. Seriously I think one of the most interesting time travel scenarios I can think of would be to take a modern "angry artist" back to speak to the folk who came up with the concept of protecting artistic works, I don't know which would be more disgusted by the other

Exactly

Most people who talk about IP infringement or similar concepts simply don't know the history behind it, and how much it's a violation of a lot of cultural practices (for example, in confucianism, copying someone art is a form of respect, not theft)

 Yodhrin wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Look, I totally get that modern IP law is largely founded on abusive consolidation of power, but that doesn't stop there being an ethical problem with stealing people's gak. As someone who makes a living off of my creative work, y'know what? It sucks when I've occasionally had people steal stuff I've done, and it doesn't matter when it's not even actually hurting me: they took something of mine, without permission, for nothing other than their profit. It's not an abstract thing that only happens to faceless monolithic companies.

You evidently don't get my point, since the first thing you do after saying so is deploy terms like "stealing" to describe activity that has only been come to be thought of as such by some exactly because of the deliberate Overton Window-shifting work of faceless monolithic companies. As I said, taking a modern "creative" back to speak to the people who originated the idea of IP would be hilarious, your mindset would be utterly alien to them, because they recognised that human creativity is fundamentally an iterative process and legal protection for "intellectual" property was a necessity driven by the need to give their labour value under capitalism that should be as minimal as possible.

We're not talking about recasting, or printing shared PDFs of GW's publications to sell, or otherwise bootlegging GW's actual products. We're talking about people drawing on artworks or descriptions in novels(which themselves often draw heavily on prior imagery both in terms of material that's entered into the commons and in terms of homages to other established IPs that absolutely have not) to inform their own creative endeavours in a different medium. If IP law had remained free of corporate interference, it's likely that huge swathes of GW's intellectual "property" would already have transitioned into the public domain(and in fact there's a solid argument to be made that much of it is already free for others to use, given much of their work should really be considered under Design Rights rather than Copy Right law, it's just that nobody has had the money and motivation to take them to court in the UK to prove it). Just as huge swathes of the material GW themselves drew from when creating their settings would be.

People keep saying that comparing the two isn't valid because "two wrongs don't make a right", but the argument being made is neither of them is wrong, one of them is just hypocritical.

I totally agree with everything you’ve said and yet, I’d still rather buy from GW than any third party company. It’s not a choice based on any supposed moral or dubious legal standpoint. I’d just rather support the artists who created 40k for me to enjoy, so that they can continue to do so.

Nor do I blame GW, or any other company for that matter, for using the law as it stands to protect their business. If people don’t like that, they should lobby for the law to be changed, rather than blaming companies from using the structures provided by law to help businesses protect their creations.

When it comes down to it, I just don’t see GW as the faceless mega corporation that some people want to portray them as. In the grand scheme of things, they’re still a small company of artists and creators, who love what they do. The new management is doing a great job of reminding us of that.

from adeptus astartes on facebook

Ha, I like those rules.

Wait, the Runestaff has no special rules? Didn't Eisenhorn wipe a daemon from existence with that thing?

It is probably included in his overall rules really- he gets two pyschic powers and two denials, which is more than most Inquisitors. The staff was just a psychic focus for his own powers.

And it was attuned to only deal with one daemon in particular IIRC.

Well, that is the sort of level of power I'd expect from an Inquisitor. Though keeping with the Inquisition traditions he refuses to use a force field...

Well, in the novels he never had one either.

I thought he got his hands on a Rosarius at one point? Or am I confusing him with a different Inquisitor in the series?

It is odd how Inquisitors don't use refractor fields or other such devices.

 Haighus wrote:
I thought he got his hands on a Rosarius at one point? Or am I confusing him with a different Inquisitor in the series?

It is odd how Inquisitors don't use refractor fields or other such devices.

He had his Inquisitorial Rosette, no Rosarius as far as I remember.

 Haighus wrote:
I thought he got his hands on a Rosarius at one point? Or am I confusing him with a different Inquisitor in the series?

It is odd how Inquisitors don't use refractor fields or other such devices.

It is because they forgot to give that option to them sometime during 5th or 6th edition (they had them previously) and now that error has been thoughtlessly repeated in three editions of their rules. It makes zero sense. IG officers have refractor fields and lowly preachers have rosarii.

Am I wrong or are his weapons not exactly in line with his story? I mean, if I recall correctly, didn't he lose his bolt pistol before he got his force staff and Barbarisater? And then got a auto pistol?

If so, he did not have the Malus Codicium nor Cherubael at the same time as he had the bolt pistol.

Ok, I konw, that is complete nitpicking, but it still somewhat bothers me :p

Yeah, it's been ages, but I thought the bolt pistol was lost pretty early.

Pretty cool that he gets the summon; sounds like people think he's mechanically priced about right?

I don't think that is the same bolt pistol. The model has a fancy gold one, the one received in Xenos was a utilitarian green one gifted by the Deathwatch.

Eisenhorn's pistols are not really discussed after the Deathwatch bolt pistol gets lost. I think this is just a "generic" pistol he has carried at some point in the many decades between Malleus and Hereticus.

Pity they didn't give him the eyesore Vibben did for him.

So, the first post isn't helpful, but did we have information on when he was available to order, etc?

Chances are probably at the same time as the novel itself, 24th of February IIRC.

 BrookM wrote:
Chances are probably at the same time as the novel itself, 24th of February IIRC.

K. I guess I'll wait and see then.

Go to the Warhammer Community site and search for Eisenhorn, and you'll get to the definitive article.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/29/black-library-celebration-coming-soongw-homepage-post-3/

Available from the 24th of February.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, it's been ages, but I thought the bolt pistol was lost pretty early.

Pretty cool that he gets the summon; sounds like people think he's mechanically priced about right?

The Bolt Pistol given to him by Librarian Brynoth was lost on Eechan, during his hunt for Lyko.
He took a normal one and sprayed it green to replace it.

Later on, he ditched his bolt pistol for whatever he could bring with him. Sometimes he had an auto pistol, sometimes a shotgun, sometimes a lascarbine...he had lots of stuff.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Go to the Warhammer Community site and search for Eisenhorn, and you'll get to the definitive article.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/01/29/black-library-celebration-coming-soongw-homepage-post-3/

Available from the 24th of February.

Thanks! Now if only that was in the first post.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Yeah, it's been ages, but I thought the bolt pistol was lost pretty early.

Pretty cool that he gets the summon; sounds like people think he's mechanically priced about right?

He’s ok... he’s basically a 2 power psyker for 100pts (but his power choices kinda suck)
His str3 ap-3 dam 1, 4x atk, 2+ to hit sword isn’t going to scare anyone and while his 4+ mortal wound to vehicles grenade is cool it’s 6in isn’t going to be reliable. He does have his quarry which allows reroll a of 1 for hit and wound vs xenos.

The only reason to take him is to have him follow around his demonhost who you also have to pay for (25pts) but is extremely competitively priced.
At str6 toughness 6 wound 5, 4 atk, and +1 to hit (3+), +1 to wound, +1 invul (4++)
Doing 4x str6 -3ap dam1 and a str8 assault 1 -1ap shooting atk that does 3 dam on 5/6 to wound roll. Plus the random demonhost effect. It’s a nice demonhost rules for the cost however If Eisenhorn dies so does the demonhost and Eisenhorn desperately needs an invuln save. If Eisenhorn had a better selection of psychic powers I’d say it’s a decent 125 pt investment as he is now he is only useful for narrative games. I don’t see a roll for these 2 models.

Apologies for the necro, but they put up an article with design notes for the mini itself, including a clarification of the equipment choices: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/02/designer-insights-inquisitor-eisenhorngw-homepage-post-4/

I got mine in yesterday, and man the scale is weird on him. He's probably just barely taller than a space marine off his base and about as tall as a primaris on it. On top of that, the torso is as long as the legs are.

Aww man, that's really disappointing re: wonky proportions. Is he built such that it wouldn't involve a lot of cutting through details to trim his height down a little?

I don't know where you'd take it off of. Let me see if I can scrounge a picture from the badly painted miniatures on my desk as an example.

Stand by.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That pic isn't great and I apologize for it, but it's what I had sitting around my desk at the time.



In order from left to right:
Easy To Build Primaris Marine, Eisenhorn (on supplied base), Space Marine (CSM torso/legs), Guardsmen (propped up on 1/8" plasticard), Guardsmen.

Probably the easiest place to remove height from would be to not use the decorative base that he's supplied with. It's about 1/8", so the side-by-side of the left-most guardsman is probably the most accurate direct comparison of the model itself.

As you can see, he's actually taller than the propped up guard, even with the guard having his helmet on. He also makes the chibi marine look adorably short by comparison.

Was Eisenhorn a giant / modified somehow? I don't really read much of the actual 40k fiction. He definitely seems like he's not designed to be on scale with humans though.

I wouldn't use the old Guard minis as to the height of 'modern' GW humans.

I'd say he's Heroic scale--as in bigger than normal human to show he's a Hero. ^_~ (This aint a scale miniatures game.)

Seems fine to me. The base adds quite a bit of height, he is not a giant.

Greyfax looks too like a giant woman compared with human miniatures, but in the tabletop she looks totally fine, is because of the heels and power armour.

The difference is so small, and being a single character hero... I don't think theres really a problem.

I didn't realize that Greyfax was so large. Honestly, this was the first GW miniature I'd bought in a while other than Mordians and some pushfit Restartes. I guess it just caught me off guard.

Hmm, I think the tall base will actually give the illusion that it's the base that's pushing the height... Either way, thanks for the pics.

The base definitely exacerbates the matter, but the adjusted guardsman negates the base padding (I measured) and he's still noticeably taller than the guardsman or the marine.

I mean, it's not a showstopper or keeping me from liking the model or anything. It just surprised me how much the scale had changed is all.

I think Dwarf Marines can safely be ignored in scale comparisons, it’s obvious GW has left them behind in terms of size. They are basically the same size as regular humans so they were always strangely small and squat anyway. Eisenhorn looks fine though, like a tall human basically. Very much doubt it’s an indication of overall scale change, seeing as all the recent-ish human-sized releases have been very consistent (GSC, Scions, AdMech etc)

The base looks like it skews things a bit.

I'll be losing that when I put mine together.

Not to mention his sculpted base is him standing on a big inquisitorial symbol, which is a little too on-the-nose for me. Definitely ditch

Got the model, pretty decent overall. A very good cast with few moldlines and virtually no casting issues (a tiny bubble on his earlobe (which is obscured anyway) and his left cuff. All of which should be pretty much invisible when Im done.

As to the proportions - hes not more disproportionate than the art. except, the art shows him with a tiny pin-head, while the model gave him a heroic head. Its kind of necessary for him to not stick out like a sore thumb...

Generally though, very happy. A bit expensive ofc, but not more than other character models. And the rules arent too bad either...

Does anyone have any decent ideas for a base model I could convert Cherubael from though? Ive been considering Flagellants, not sure though...

I assembled him last night along with some Scions, a couple Deathwatch marines, and an assassin. The Deathwatch marine is clearly about half a head taller than the others, and Eisenhorn is essentially the same height when standing on about an extra base width of terrain. If I put a base under a scion they're the same height and it makes it pretty clear they're about the same head to toe. Basically the same as the assassin. Also, his head doesn't seem nearly as large in person as it looks on the site. Not sure why exactly. It's also a separate piece so you can easily tilt it to the side to reproduce the look of the art better. He's a nice model, though I still don't love GW resins.

 Tyr13 wrote:

Does anyone have any decent ideas for a base model I could convert Cherubael from though? Ive been considering Flagellants, not sure though...

I'm using a Malifaux Essence of Power: