Very excited and hope we see some new AoS stuff - esp considering that between the leaks and the dwindling time left for the year we now know all that's coming for AoS until beginning of January (with the only real mystery being what's happening with those repriced/repacked/redesigned warcry sets)
There was a splash page on the 40k Facebook that I can no longer find.
It had a very Mechanicus flavor to it.
Found it! Sorry for the FB link:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Very excited and hope we see some new AoS stuff - esp considering that between the leaks and the dwindling time left for the year we now know all that's coming for AoS until beginning of January (with the only real mystery being what's happening with those repriced/repacked/redesigned warcry sets)
It's the 40k Open Day, so I think you'll be a bit disappointed.
Looks pretty standard mechanicum
I wonder if the symbolic 'crossword' to the upper right is meaningful in some way.
Mars is in there twice (nowadays its used as the 'male' symbol, but that's the astrological symbol for mars), with a summation symbol between them, and a backwards symbol of Ceres in a couple places.
Overread wrote: Very excited and hope we see some new AoS stuff - esp considering that between the leaks and the dwindling time left for the year we now know all that's coming for AoS until beginning of January (with the only real mystery being what's happening with those repriced/repacked/redesigned warcry sets)
It'd be nice, but '40k Open Day' seems to have a built in theme.
It'd be equally nice if the Chaos stuff went up for preorder tomorrow, but I expect/hope we'll see the official pre-announcement for pre-order on Sunday.
Thargrim wrote: I'm not really all that excited for this and not expecting much, hopefully they slip in some SG stuff like the grot bommer for AI.
I have a feeling they will, but I really hope they don't as it'd be a waste of a reveal. According to the leaked release schedule it's up for pre-order in another week or two.
It'd be better to show the rumored Space Marine, Eldar, or Chaos flyers imo.
Mechanicus would be nice with a couple more characters, maybe a flier and another elite and or fast attack choice. Adeptus Titanicus would also fit the theme, maybe the next plastic titan for that? Hopefully in a few months though, need time for the wallet to recover.
Thargrim wrote: I'm not really all that excited for this and not expecting much, hopefully they slip in some SG stuff like the grot bommer for AI.
I have a feeling they will, but I really hope they don't as it'd be a waste of a reveal. According to the leaked release schedule it's up for pre-order in another week or two.
It'd be better to show the rumored Space Marine, Eldar, or Chaos flyers imo.
The game desperately needs new factions soon, it's starting to fizzle out in my area cause orks vs imperials is a pretty bland or generic matchup. I wouldn't be surprised though if we mostly get a bit more SoB stuff and mechanicus with little else.
A quick heads up. The Aos open day had a bunch of teasers but only actually revealed one model.
They will probably show off the full sisters range and maybe a model or two from one more upcoming release.
Mechanicus would be nice with a couple more characters, maybe a flier and another elite and or fast attack choice. Adeptus Titanicus would also fit the theme, maybe the next plastic titan for that? Hopefully in a few months though, need time for the wallet to recover.
I would love it if they released that other character they made outside the killteam box that I didn't pick up, that would be amazing, as cool as Tech priest Dominus and standard tech priests are.
They look cool, the ad mech thing has rear legs it looks like ? That is a bit, strange. I'm not about to get excited for it as I'm sure it'll be around 100$ USD so probably a pass regardless. Looks interesting though.
The sisters model, looks amazingly busy and with how tall it is you'll really need to brain storm a way to make it so it can be stored for a case and travel, already giving me night mares. Also, I'm concerned it'll be hugely over expensive for a cool looking, but soft rules wise model which will make me a sad man thing.
That mistress of repentia is not very good. Bad face sculpt and odd pose, the one in the limited edition box was way better....ouch. The rest looks good though.
Agreed about the vampire, but the flier is interesting. I could see some really cool conversions by orks for it at least. And I guess Admech needed a flier...
The AdMech flier actually reminds me of Dune's Ornithopters, so that's kind of neat. On the other hand, I struggle to care for the Sisters of Battle stuff, let alone the vampire.
How long has it been since we saw a vehicle released with a clear canopy? Good to see it on both the Immolator and And Mech Flier. That flier is insane.
Well, an Archeocopter aka icarus grasshopper.
A triple model kit.
It looks non-functional, weird to the extreme and so try-hard... that it's just.. off.
Looking at the model, it is rather small compared to the Skitarii Ranger pilot. So I'd wager it has a very limit transport capacity of max 5.
As a gunship, it seems to have pretty much exclusively stubbers and a small missile launcher.
At least it should be easy to magnetize between gunship and bomber... the bombs seem to occupy the same slot as the turret, as does the missile rack and the data tether antennae.
The only other difference seem to be the side doors. Which are so small, a Skitarii wouldnt even fit through.
So the Triumph could totally have been made as a unit of six separate models, which would have made it easier to transport, and would have allowed it's rules not to be so clunky.
New sister model looks like a diorama more than a playable model. Anyway I like it. As concept it reminds me the casket of souls from tomb kings: A static center piece, with the cerimony going on around it. Probably if the Casket would have been done these days it would have looked like this.
The new Ad mech flyer...mmm...i don't like it. It doesn't looks like an ad-mech model. Probably more an orkish flyers with not enough dakka.
Yeah I really don't get where they're going with 40K AdMech to be honest. Hovercraft. Ornithopters. Walker tanks. No recognisable STC patterns at all. They seem to think a mad scattergun collection of random stuff fits the faction, but it doesn't work for me at all.
When I think "AdMech flier" the image that comes to mind is a flying brick, even moreso than Marine fliers. Something along the lines of the Arvus Lighter but heftier.
Yodhrin wrote: Yeah I really don't get where they're going with 40K AdMech to be honest. Hovercraft. Ornithopters. Walker tanks. No recognisable STC patterns at all. They seem to think a mad scattergun collection of random stuff fits the faction, but it doesn't work for me at all.
When I think "AdMech flier" the image that comes to mind is a flying brick, even moreso than Marine fliers. Something along the lines of the Arvus Lighter but heftier.
Agreed. I was thinking the body/cockpit look ok, and I would have liked some more downward swept Valkyrie wings. That same blocky industria style. This looks like they started making something 40K and ended up thinking about a Dwarf gyrocopter while designing it.
The Triumph? F A B U L O U S! Lovely model and everything I was expecting (i.e. a Bret Grail Reliquiae ramped up to 11).
The Flyer? No, Nope. Nein. Non! It looks so out of place (it would look far more in place with the AoS Dwarf guys). It looks like something from a Steampunk-esq game that found its way into 40k. I'd expect it to be called like a "Professor Huffanagle's Fantabulous flying contraption". Like, why do the wings actually need to move? Why does it have legs?
There is a lot to unpack on that model and it looks godawful.
Lord Damocles wrote: So the Triumph could totally have been made as a unit of six separate models, which would have made it easier to transport, and would have allowed it's rules not to be so clunky.
...true. though in that case they couldn't put as much.. as others say, "over the top" onto it. can't have a proper grail reliquae without that piece itself, after all. and that air is quite busy with cherubs. still like the actual individual sisters on it though, especially the one leading the front. the air is more serene and tempered instead of what i see as ragey, which is more common for the expressions on the rest of the line thusfar. plus that front model is more or less what i had hoped they'd do for a sisters generic and armored melee unit. shame it's only on this model though. Maybe that'll come around someday.
Sign me up for the pro flier team. Love it. I don’t think it’s out of place with the AdMech look at all. I definitely don’t agree that it fits the Kharadron Overlords more (it’s a big metal bird, not a steam powered airship).
Honestly when you look at the AdMEch range the new flying unit fits in very well. Also for those saying that GW are making them look like 80-90s sci-fi war toys - I think that is honestly their intentional angle with the designs! Just like Imperial Guard are WWII fantasy tanks of a similar design ethos an era.
The new Sisters of Battle diorama is outstanding! I agree that the sister heading up the team really looks the part of powerful and serene and yet also menacing as she leads the group through battle. An epic model!
Also GW stop rubbing the salt in the Tyranids already! Another view of Mephiston and Tyranids get - wait for it - a new box for the Hive Tyrant and Termagaunts. Though I can't complain too much as, far as I can recall, the prices haven't shifted (if they have then gaunts just got as much as the other infantry); but it does feel kind of sad that Marines got this awesome sculpt and new leader and Tyranids got just some rules in the book.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Heh. It's an ornithopter. Hilarious. I quite like it.
The Triumph... man. Really hope that kind of "Diorama HQ" doesn't become a trend. Hmm...
That said, the individual minis are very nice, and they're all lumped together on an absurd base.
Completely agree here.
While I love how it looks, these things are a display piece.
On the table they really aren’t even close to practical by any means, let alone getting them to begin with.
Not even slightly tempted with a sisters army but may pick that up and make a larger base as a painting project when I have time.
I'm going to go out on a limb here - ha! - and go with "for landing purposes".
I'd also like to see more angles of it, but there we go.
Ok, Mr pedantic...
I mean, they are literally legs- not landing gear (though that is presumably what they are). A pair of legs. The more and more I look at it the more and more it reminds me of Skylynx from Transformers.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Heh. It's an ornithopter. Hilarious. I quite like it.
Ahh I knew it reminded me of something! The helicopter type cockpit threw me off. Yes its an ornithropter right out of Dune! Again its very 80s era sci-fi and very fitting for 40K.
Chances are seeing them in the flesh and seeing them with other units from the army will help them blend in. Sometimes a model out on its own looks out of place or not very interesting, but blended into an army it works. It's like that for me with the Genestealer cults. I disliked their first vehicle. It looked daft and wrong and out of place in an army which, at the time, was basically a few genestealers; a few half breeds and then a lot of Imperial Guard models. However when GW then added the light vehicle, the bikes and buggy and a whole slew of other cult models the vehicle suddenly fit into the theme. They want from "an odd bunch of miners alongside the Guard" to an organised army of underhiver minders rising up with fearsome futuristic tech and re-appropriated mining vehicles.
Love the new Ad Mech flyer personally. The very mixed reaction does highlight to me what think is the big problem with the Ad Mech range. There’s just no single unifying aesthetic. The range feels like a mix of whatever felt like a good idea at the time. On the one hand you have the weirdness of Dragoon walkers with lances and this ornithopter, on the other you have the industrial utilitarianism of the hovercraft. It’s almost inevitable that no one person will like everything in the range and not think parts of it don’t fit.
Dudeface wrote: Not to be ungrateful but I kinda hope there's more to follow, feels a bit "is that it?" at the moment.
"We’ll have an update from the Psychic Awakening seminars later, so be sure to keep your eyes on warhammer-community.com and the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page for more news."
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Love the new Ad Mech flyer personally. The very mixed reaction does highlight to me what think is the big problem with the Ad Mech range. There’s just no single unifying aesthetic. The range feels like a mix of whatever felt like a good idea at the time. On the one hand you have the weirdness of Dragoon walkers with lances and this ornithopter, on the other you have the industrial utilitarianism of the hovercraft. It’s almost inevitable that no one person will like everything in the range and not think parts of it don’t fit.
I disagree. While a unified aesthetic across the range is normally really, really vital for making the range work, the lack of it for AdMech is totally on point. It really helps to reinforce the diverse nature of them as a faction, and the vast pool of different resources that they draw technology from.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Love the new Ad Mech flyer personally. The very mixed reaction does highlight to me what think is the big problem with the Ad Mech range. There’s just no single unifying aesthetic. The range feels like a mix of whatever felt like a good idea at the time. On the one hand you have the weirdness of Dragoon walkers with lances and this ornithopter, on the other you have the industrial utilitarianism of the hovercraft. It’s almost inevitable that no one person will like everything in the range and not think parts of it don’t fit.
I disagree. While a unified aesthetic across the range is normally really, really vital for making the range work, the lack of it for AdMech is totally on point. It really helps to reinforce the diverse nature of them as a faction, and the vast pool of different resources that they draw technology from.
That may be so from a background point of view, but I have a hard time liking Ad Mech as a faction as a result. Most factions in 40k, I either like pretty much everything, or dislike everything, which is fine. Some factions I like, some I don’t. The problem with Ad Mech is that I really want to like them, but hate half of their models (while really liking the other half).
You can get that even when there is a unified aesthetic, though. I love the design of regular Primaris Marines, for example... but hate the jump packs and vehicles.
By contrast, I've loved everything GW have released for Ad Mech so far.
The flyer is just a bit too on the nose. If it was a bit more evocative but the wings and tail looked more mechanical then I think it would be pretty neat, but it just looks a bit too fantasy-esque as is.
I love the St Katherine set though, that's lovely.
It is a bit of a shame that the Mistress of Repentia is worse than the ltd one. I hate when that happens.
blood reaper wrote: GW is completely incapable of looking good looking flyers. Christ that is a terrible looking model. Just give me a MIG in space already.
They already made a flier which is quite clearly based on the MiG-17; the ork dakkajet has a similar overall shape and the distinctive intake.
It may be busy, but I do love the Triumph.....more than the flying pulpit by a long shot.
As for admech, it fits perfectly with the steampunk/classic sci-fi look that the rest of the range has. The wings also give me John Carter from Mars vibes too (at least the movie, haven't read the books)
Dudeface wrote: Not to be ungrateful but I kinda hope there's more to follow, feels a bit "is that it?" at the moment.
"We’ll have an update from the Psychic Awakening seminars later, so be sure to keep your eyes on warhammer-community.com and the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page for more news."
Yeah I did see that but I expect it to be a teaser trailer for book 4 and maybe some burb about the campaign continuing and that's about it.
The Ad Mech flyer looks great apart the hind legs.Some people just do not seem to get that the theme of Ad Mech is weird steampunk contraptions. They have generated an image of what Ad Mech should be in their heads and are disappointed when the actual models are not as plain and boring than the ones they imagined.
The Triump is absolutely stunning. It looks amazing as that whole diorama, but I also instantly started to think how the models could be used separately. It is a nice collection of SoB characters. They would make great Imagifiers and Dialogi, perhaps even Inquisitors.
Must admit I like the flyer. They purchased it first hand from the squats. The admech stuff to me has always looked like what WWIII was expected to look like before WWII. To be honest if someone had asked me what a Skittari flyer would look like I might have said armored dirigible, or maybe flying saucer.
although the Triumph is going to be a nightmare to take anywhere if you actually stick the cherubim on it as those chains are going to snap double quick
I like the Triumph but I'm hoping that the three extra cherubs are removable as part of the build.
I'm surprised that the Sanctum wasn't shown off. I wonder if either it isn't painted/designed yet or if it's one of the last things that will be shown off before the February/March release.
The flyer does seem to be a small kit for a transport. Doesn't even get a regular flight stand. Did he test glue the cockpit on before removing for the photo?
Insurgency Walker wrote: The flyer does seem to be a small kit for a transport. Doesn't even get a regular flight stand. Did he test glue the cockpit on before removing for the photo?
Nope. Those are attachment points from the sprue.
They look funky because it looks like the cockpit builds as an 'interior' and then the exterior goes over top of it.
Insurgency Walker wrote: The flyer does seem to be a small kit for a transport. Doesn't even get a regular flight stand. Did he test glue the cockpit on before removing for the photo?
Nope. Those are attachment points from the sprue.
They look funky because it looks like the cockpit builds as an 'interior' and then the exterior goes over top of it.
Along the top, that’s definitely been glued then pulled apart.
Ah I’m bummed Ghazza possibly won’t be getting a model after all. Since they said each book will have “a” champaign, and it’s not until at least March at least.
Dark Angels will just get the basic upgrade then (rules plus maybe one character) as Sisters will be the bigger release next year. Orks/Wolves look to be bumped to 3rd book which is against the rumour mill. Tau one will maybe have Deathwatch too?
Looking forward to better rules for Dark Angels though, especially with the points drops that just got released too.
Insurgency Walker wrote: The flyer does seem to be a small kit for a transport. Doesn't even get a regular flight stand. Did he test glue the cockpit on before removing for the photo?
Nope. Those are attachment points from the sprue.
They look funky because it looks like the cockpit builds as an 'interior' and then the exterior goes over top of it.
Along the top, that’s definitely been glued then pulled apart.
Let people play with your models on display? Maybe someone wanted a better look at the interior.
WHCommunity wrote:Each book will be accompanied by an epic champion to lead the charge in this terrible age. These legendary heroes will include reborn, reimagined and brand-new characters, but we can’t reveal any more details at the moment.
Azrael for DA? I doubt TS will get anything, CSM have just had a new Sorcerer model and there's not much more design room for them given they have Magnus.
Tau vs who? And who will be reimagined? Farsight is new(ish) isn't he? Shadowsun perhaps? She's still resin, right?
SW vs Orks must be the last one. As we practically know for a fact that Ragnar is getting re-done, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Orks get no new models.
I like the idea that the AdMech make normal stuff for everyone else, but for their own forces, they like to show off and have things that shouldn't work but because of AdMech magitech it does. That's why they have perpetual motion walkers, spider-tanks, hovercraft and ornithopters.
I'm clearly on on an island here, but that admech flies is trash to me. Doesn't look like anything that would be built by Mars. Maybe chaos, but not loyalists. Love the SoB stuff though.
On the table they really aren’t even close to practical by any means, let alone getting them to begin with.
Im not trolling but why?
They have no bigger footprint than a baneblade or a an IK or a Gargant.
What makes them impractical?
The Baneblade is brick-shaped, which makes it easy to transport. Knights and the Stompa are less regular shapes, but they're chunky enough that they're not too difficult.
The Triumph is irregularly shaped, with very tall spindly elements which will take very little pressure.
If it had to be contained within a single base (which it didn't), it could have had the models on individual bases which slot into the larger display base like the Forge World character series models.
The Ornithopters might be more famously from Dune, but they're also portrayed that way in the John Carter film (not sure if they are ornithopters in the books, but these are books that were written less than 10 years after the Wright Brother's first flight).
Also Mar's atmosphere is too thin for Terran planes and helicopters to work, you'd need much bigger wings or to flap.
A lot of the weird grab bag of references that have gone into the AdMech are then pilfering anything that that's got a Martian link. I'd be amazed if the Dunecrawlers didn't start as Tripods, and the Rad-trooper/radium gun vanguard is also from the John Carter books.
The Triumph had to be on a single base for the cherubs to work, that way the spindly bits can link together to form a more stable base for the tall stuff. If you wanted individual models then you'd lose the cherubs, so nothing is really stopping you from rebasing it.
Also, where the flipping heck are Fulgrim and Angron?
Angron is lost, too angry to read directions to get to any of the warzones
Fulgrim is just being fashionably late
im ready though for next book to be a full dark angels codex and thousand sons get 3 new strategems and a new relic. Somehow the Tau "greater good" one will be a codex for Lamenters with no tau rules in it /s
My EC army is desperate to get fulgrim and some new noise marines, but the PA stuff has made me reconsider that we are getting stuff soon, I dont expect EC now until maybe 2021
H.B.M.C. wrote: I like the idea that the AdMech make normal stuff for everyone else, but for their own forces, they like to show off and have things that shouldn't work but because of AdMech magitech it does. That's why they have perpetual motion walkers, spider-tanks, hovercraft and ornithopters.
Yup.
Ad-Mech armies are about them showing off, and possibly using the most venerable tech and efficiency be damned.
Possibly akin to technological Amish? They do things “the old way” because they believe it pleases the Omnissiah?
Wasn't expecting 3 more books of nothing, especially not Sons vs Dark Angels, or Tau vs ??.
And -a- character model for each. Woo. Who knew the eldar one would be the pack leader when it came to content? And I've made myself sad now.
Sisters release is unsurprising, but I don't think many have noticed that the impractical Triumph and maybe some other things are 'early next year' and the repentia are 'sometime' next year. So at least two sisters waves dribbled out over 2020.
First thought on the ad mech was the game doesn't need more flyers, second was that an ornithopter gets a pass.
And... Mephy taking up reveal space, not a surprise.
All told, not much here, and no real surprise that there isn't. Psychic Awakening seems a desperate attempt to fill a lull.
The flier is gorgeous and makes me want to start a new army... but I'll admit to being a bit disappointed. No Titanicus sneak peek? No 'next wave' Aeronautica? No Blackstone Fortress? C'mon GW.....
WHCommunity wrote:Each book will be accompanied by an epic champion to lead the charge in this terrible age. These legendary heroes will include reborn, reimagined and brand-new characters, but we can’t reveal any more details at the moment.
Azrael for DA? I doubt TS will get anything, CSM have just had a new Sorcerer model and there's not much more design room for them given they have Magnus.
Tau vs who? And who will be reimagined? Farsight is new(ish) isn't he? Shadowsun perhaps? She's still resin, right?
SW vs Orks must be the last one. As we practically know for a fact that Ragnar is getting re-done, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Orks get no new models.
Maybe Tau vs AdMech, given the new flier, but it would break the pattern so far of just the odd character and redone units. That said, GW doesn’t often stick to patterns.
JBSchroeds wrote: That flier is an Ornithopter ripped straight out of DUNE. I love it.
Exactly my first thought. Love this retro-futuristic weirdness.
For those of you talking about 80s sci-fi, sorry but you're way off - this is Amazing Stories 1930s style from the first golden age of sci-fi. It's what inspired Frank Herbert when he wrote Dune back in the 60s.
Also, I'm definitely getting a Triumph, great model, very grimdark gothic, just like 40k should be IMO.
I don't like the flyer at all, looks far too animalistic. It would really clashes with the current Admech line. Maybe if you they took a Valkyrie swapped the cockpit for the new one and added all the new weapons in roughly the same places I think you would have a much better looking model.
Might be worth the conversion for those that don't like the new model (like me).
So the wings, tail and engines of the Valkyrie with the body for the new flyer and I think you have something that would look much better.
The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.
I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.
Wow the gatekeeping is strong with this ones. Everything looks like a toy... yeah because before it didn't...
FW has always had the more "grounded" look thats right but to say that theres a toyfication of the warhammer models is just disingenuous. You just need to look at models of 15-20 years ago to find a ton of extremely cartoony stuff that looked like toys.
Is absolutely fine to dislike something. But to call it toys, or worse, to say they are designed for children, is just insulting for the people that like those designs, marking them with an absolutely subjetive and just wrong label to point them as inferior products to the ones that you happen to like.
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Starting? It began with the Tau flyers with popup missiles and the Ad Mech walkers with the same.
Is absolutely fine to dislike something. But to call it toys, or worse, to say they are designed for children, is just insulting for the people that like those designs
I didn't say it was wrong for people to like things made for children. I just think it looks like it was aimed at children.
I don't know how that's 'gatekeeping either' but whatever.
marking them with an absolutely subjetive and just wrong label to point them as inferior products to the ones that you happen to like.
How is it wrong to say something looks inferior? It's a subjective discussion, and subjectively I think it looks inferior. It just sounds like you're trying to find ways to shutdown people criticising it.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Oh lordy ... the 40k is for children but my FW is for grown up crowd is here to tell us how superior they are.
I own three Forge World models. I didn't say I was superior, I said the quality of their design was superior.
Saying GW is designed for children and FW for adults is literal gatekeeping.
Besides that, as I said, 40k has always been extremely cartoony with crazy designs and miniatures. There hasn't been a change in the artistic direction in the 30-35 years of history of the game. A Primaris Marine is no different than a tactical from Space Crusade. They aren't more toys or G-joe, they are basically the same idea made with different levels of technology.
The samething applies to everything else. You have all the crazy models, all the more grounded models, blinged models (Eliminators are tacticool but SM Scout Snipers are not for some reason), simple ones, and more complex ones.
This is like all the "They are making Slaanesh PG+7" because now they don't show nipples except you have the beast of slaanesh showing not only nipples but a tail that is basically a giant penis.
Chaos Dinobots are not toys, or at least, not more than many models before them. And this flyer is not shaped like a toy, or at least not more than any other model. I dispute the label of "toy-like" as nothing more than an attempt to put a moral value of inferiority. And I don't think I need to quote C.S. Lewis.
Galas wrote: Saying GW is designed for children and FW for adults is literal gatekeeping.
I mean it's not wrong. I wouldn't give children most Forge World products due to the nature of the kits (which isn't all that spectacular).
Besides that, as I said, 40k has always been extremely cartoony with crazy designs and miniatures. There hasn't been a change in the artistic direction in the 30-35 years of history of the game. A Primaris Marine is no different than a tactical from Space Crusade. They aren't more toys or G-joe, they are basically the same idea made with different levels of technology.
I would argue that around 4-5th there was a fairly distinct aesthetic that moved away from the sort of cartoony style of earlier editions. This aesthetic sort of disappeared with 6th, and in 7th and 8th we see a lot of designs which directly reference their Rogue Trader/2nd era concept art and figures - i.e., the Rubric Marines and Plague Marines
The samething applies to everything else. You have all the crazy models, all the more grounded models, blinged models (Eliminators are tacticool but SM Scout Snipers are not for some reason), simple ones, and more complex ones.
'Crazy' is a sort of meaningless term in 40k - the basic concept of the Space Marine is crazy.
This is like all the "They are making Slaanesh PG+7" because now they don't show nipples except you have the beast of slaanesh showing not only nipples but a tail that is basically a giant penis.
It's very clear they toned down the Slaanesh figures in lot of ways, but this isn't really relevant to the discussion.
'It looks like a toy' is favourite phrase of people who are unable to articulate their criticism intelligently. First of, they literally are toys. Secondly it gets thrown around without rhyme or reason. Primaris marines are too 'modern' not gothic enough, are bigger with more natural proportions -> ''Looks like a toy.' Ad Mech flyer baroque and weird, not 'realistic' enough -> ''Looks like a toy.'
Greater Good: Meh, not much from this. I hate Tau, so not expecting anything I care for to come out of this unless it's where we get the Admech rules or some Custodes stuff slips in. (Or more IG stuff could be neat... ditto Necrons!)
Saga: Come on Russ AND Prime Gaz!
Realistically, I'm expecting a newly Primaris character from each. I've reached the point I don't think GW intends to do any more Primarchs.
I think it's great that people love and hate the new models, diversity is great. Looking like a toy is pretty much how it's always been, not sure what's changed.
Okay, the animation thing actually looks more intriguing than I expected. There of course were clunky 3D marines shouting banalities with booming voices, but there were also things that looked genuinely interesting.
Galas wrote: Wow the gatekeeping is strong with this ones.
Gatekeeping is not a universal bad. But in this case, it isn't even gatekeeping. It's just someone sharing his opinion on some models. The fact that you feel this trivializes your appreciation of those models doesn't make it gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is excluding others - not saying they think the design sensibility of a particular model targets a specific demographic of which he does not belong. He said the look wasn't for him, not that anybody who likes the look should be exiled from the 40k community. If anything, he is lamenting that he, himself, doesn't belong.
Crimson wrote: Okay, the animation thing actually looks more intriguing than I expected. There of course were clunky 3D marines shouting banalities with booming voices, but there were also things that looked genuinely interesting.
Very weird mix of styles.
The kids one is very '80s-inspired' 2000s style American cartoon, something in there was anime copypasta (specifically a ghost in the shell knockoff), and the Blood Angel thing is purely soulless CGI with, as you say, lots of banalities.
Somehow I suspect the kids one is going to be the deepest one, with themes beyond shouting grimderp slogans.
Crimson wrote: Okay, the animation thing actually looks more intriguing than I expected. There of course were clunky 3D marines shouting banalities with booming voices, but there were also things that looked genuinely interesting.
Very weird mix of styles.
The kids one is very '80s-inspired' 2000s style American cartoon, something in there was anime copypasta (specifically a ghost in the shell knockoff), and the Blood Angel thing is purely soulless CGI with, as you say, lots of banalities.
Somehow I suspect the kids one is going to be the deepest one, with themes beyond shouting grimderp slogans.
Glad I'm not the one person who feels like this. I just couldn't get excited for the animation at all. It's the same awkward, clunky Marines shooting through hordes of X without any sense of threat interspersed with the occasional human looking in awe/frightened. Meanwhile this will no doubt get tens of thousands of "OMG THIS IS SO EPIC, BLAM THE HERETICS, GLLORRRIIOOUUSSS!" whilst I'm sat here hoping (and doubting) the Eisenhorn series might come to fruition so we can see something beyond bolter porn.
Worth mentioning that this caveat was given with regards to the animation:
Warhammer Community wrote:Some of this you may have already seen. Some are early proofs of concept, or “what if?” material, the team has been playing around with. Others may be released as fully realised animated series. As to which of the animations falls into which camp, stay tuned over the coming months for updates. One thing is for sure – there’s some incredible Warhammer content coming to your screens.
The first project due for completion is, of course, Angels of Death. We don’t know about you, but we think it’s coming along rather nicely.
Written by the Warhammer Story Forge (more on those fine wordsmiths soon), Angels of Death is being animated in collaboration with Richard Boylan and Boman Modine. Some of you may remember Richard and Boman’s striking and atmospheric work from their fan-made animation of the Helsreach audiobook. Alongside the Warhammer Story Forge, the team is creating something really special – an all-new Blood Angels story brought to visceral life. This is the 41st Millennium you always dreamed of seeing on screen.
Crimson wrote: Okay, the animation thing actually looks more intriguing than I expected. There of course were clunky 3D marines shouting banalities with booming voices, but there were also things that looked genuinely interesting.
Very weird mix of styles.
The kids one is very '80s-inspired' 2000s style American cartoon, something in there was anime copypasta (specifically a ghost in the shell knockoff), and the Blood Angel thing is purely soulless CGI with, as you say, lots of banalities.
Somehow I suspect the kids one is going to be the deepest one, with themes beyond shouting grimderp slogans.
Glad I'm not the one person who feels like this. I just couldn't get excited for the animation at all. It's the same awkward, clunky Marines shooting through hordes of X without any sense of threat interspersed with the occasional human looking in awe/frightened. Meanwhile this will no doubt get tens of thousands of "OMG THIS IS SO EPIC, BLAM THE HERETICS, GLLORRRIIOOUUSSS!" whilst I'm sat here hoping (and doubting) the Eisenhorn series might come to fruition so we can see something beyond bolter porn.
This, this so much.
People get way too excited by animations of Space Marines just shooting stuff.
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.
I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.
Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....
Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.
I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.
Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....
Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)
Yeah duff product out of many doesn't really prove anything - I don't deny Forge World has a lot of duff sculpts - in fact there's a lot of problems with Forge World, the point is more that in general, Forge World has a somewhat more refined, nicer style. Most of that time, that is.
Moaning is such a literal non-point. Christ alive, some of you people are so attached to your commodities even passing criticism sees you lose your minds - Marcuse was right.
People get way too excited by animations of Space Marines just shooting stuff.
I clapped! I clapped when he said "For the Emperor!"
But in all seriousness, I always feel a bit conflicted about rolling my eyes at this stuff. Loads of people obviously love it, but I don't feel like I'm being deliberately contrarian in hoping for something more about the 'world' that could be delved into. Whilst The Lord Inquisitor prologue ended up being a bit disappointing, I still feel I'll enjoy it more than Angels of Death turns out to be. Between this and how much more buzz Astartes gets over TLI though, I'm apparently in the minority.
People get way too excited by animations of Space Marines just shooting stuff.
I clapped! I clapped when he said "For the Emperor!"
But in all seriousness, I always feel a bit conflicted about rolling my eyes at this stuff. Loads of people obviously love it, but I don't feel like I'm being deliberately contrarian in hoping for something more about the 'world' that could be delved into. Whilst The Lord Inquisitor prologue ended up being a bit disappointing, I still feel I'll enjoy it more than Angels of Death turns out to be. Between this and how much more buzz Astartes gets over TLI though, I'm apparently in the minority.
IT'S THE DREADNOUGHT! IT'S THE DREADNOUGHT! I GOTTA PLAY WITH MY 40K MODELS!
I don't think there's anything wrong about being sceptical about this sort of stuff - and it's not contrarian not to get caught up in often somewhat cringy fan fever that happens over it. I guess that's just what people want though, and there's nothing wrong with that. Unironically I just want a 40k cartoon in the style of Samurai Jack rather than some 'Space Marines shoot some stuff for 5 minutes, then Chaos Space Marine turns up, and there's a lot of grunting and very difficult to hear dialogue.
Just my opinion, but the comics and animation clearly aimed at kids makes me feel a bit weird.
Yeah, most of us were kids when we started so my following point is somewhat illogical, but it’s like animating the third reich or spanish inquisition to make a kids show out of it. Knowing the actual lore to 40k makes cartoons and comics about it weird to me, even though I started playing at 10 so I really don’t have a leg to stand on.
Nostromodamus wrote: Just my opinion, but the comics and animation clearly aimed at kids makes me feel a bit weird.
Yeah, most of us were kids when we started so my following point is somewhat illogical, but it’s like animating the third reich or spanish inquisition to make a kids show out of it. Knowing the actual lore to 40k makes cartoons and comics about it weird to me, even though I started playing at 10 so I really don’t have a leg to stand on.
I dunno, it just bothers me.
My impression has always been the Warhammer Adventures stuff is it's more aimed at something for fathers to buy in desperate hopes they can get their children somehow interested in the hobby.
It seems like on the rare occasions I go into a GW to buy an odd paint, there's always a somewhat uncomfortable/confused looking kid having the first book thrust into their hands by their dad/store manager trying to explain it to them.
Eh, some of the animation styles look nice enough. CGI seems soulless though.
Were it up to me I would have a single show, an anthology series kinda like Twilight Zone or something, that would've just explored the universe. imho40k tends to work the best as short stories.
Or a Star Trek-esque show about a Kroot warband, 'cause I like me some Kroot.
Definitely not interested in the animations. at this point it's force of habit to duck away from a production until i can gather more information.
so thats was everything beyond the awakening? well, at least i have potential... lesse, tau, orks nad space wolf data to look forward to in the future. maybe ill get lucky and custodes or guard will get something in these books as well.
Nostromodamus wrote: Just my opinion, but the comics and animation clearly aimed at kids makes me feel a bit weird.
Yeah, most of us were kids when we started so my following point is somewhat illogical, but it’s like animating the third reich or spanish inquisition to make a kids show out of it. Knowing the actual lore to 40k makes cartoons and comics about it weird to me, even though I started playing at 10 so I really don’t have a leg to stand on.
I dunno, it just bothers me.
If they try to make the night lords one kid friendly it could be painfully hilarious.
Voss wrote: Somehow I suspect the kids one is going to be the deepest one, with themes beyond shouting grimderp slogans.
Have you looked at the Warhammer Adventures books the animation is based on? I'm not sure that the 40K series could settle on a coherent theme in a month of Sundays...
Love the flier. Seems like that with the rumor engine pic, could mean admec jump troops? This wing doesn't match the flier wing. It also seems to small for a vehicle.
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.
I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.
Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....
Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)
Yeah duff product out of many doesn't really prove anything - I don't deny Forge World has a lot of duff sculpts - in fact there's a lot of problems with Forge World, the point is more that in general, Forge World has a somewhat more refined, nicer style. Most of that time, that is.
Moaning is such a literal non-point. Christ alive, some of you people are so attached to your commodities even passing criticism sees you lose your minds - Marcuse was right.
I don't see it as criticism Blood Reaper. I just see it as people taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss. Art is subjective, some will like it, some wont. Most don't care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marshal Loss wrote: Pretty dull open day all things considered. Love the Triumph of St. Katherine though
It's a neat model, but I'll be passing. It's not playable on the table top.
It's a neat model, but I'll be passing. It's not playable on the table top.
It's base doesn't look any bigger than a knights and the models in it are all walking forwards (or flying). So its visually mobile, at least as much as any other infantry models we get.
It's certainly more diorama than pure model, but it would certainly work on the tabletop. AoS is full of mobile thrones and shrines; meanwhile Krakatos is already appearing on battlefields and he was very much the same (multiple models on a posed base) if not a bit more extreme as his pose is static rather than mobile.
Edit - the new animations are looking very interesting. Still just at the teaser level but still pretty big - though a bit of a shame that a good few look to be quite "jumpy" in animation as opposed to smoothed, but that might just be pre-production and scene selection. The animated kids books will be neat to see GW engaging new and younger fans. Meanwhile the rest look creative and fun. Just hope we get to see lots of Xenos appearing!
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I think you've managed to top the steroetypical "OMG, I'm playing with toy soldiers" and gone into completely new denial territory.
Rhinos and land raiders have detailed interiors with hatches that you can leave open. (And drop pods, and whatever else they can manage.) Most of the vehicle turrets are easy enough to put in place using magnets, or just not glued, so they can swivel around. Remember when the rules for the game said that vehicle turrets had line of sight based on where they could be pivoted to see?
Games Workshop has been making toys for children of all ages for the past twenty five years.
WHCommunity wrote:Each book will be accompanied by an epic champion to lead the charge in this terrible age. These legendary heroes will include reborn, reimagined and brand-new characters, but we can’t reveal any more details at the moment.
Azrael for DA? I doubt TS will get anything, CSM have just had a new Sorcerer model and there's not much more design room for them given they have Magnus.
Tau vs who? And who will be reimagined? Farsight is new(ish) isn't he? Shadowsun perhaps? She's still resin, right?
SW vs Orks must be the last one. As we practically know for a fact that Ragnar is getting re-done, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Orks get no new models.
Saga of the beast? yeah that name pretty much screams "Space Wovles vs Orks" given Saga's are kind of a space wolf thing, and the beast is well... THE BEAST. could be intreasting as it could mean bringing in stuff from the beast arises. I'd be sad if we didn't get a plastic Ghaz with the release.
zamerion wrote:
Arbitrator wrote: Two Imperial models and some janky animated shorts.
Yawn. Somehow I can't be surprised anymore.
. Very poor day..
I know how dare sisters of battle get new mini's! they get so many!
The Archaeopter fits perectly with my vision of Ad Mech - wierd steampunky contraptions - awesome - will be getting one (as a Moorcock fan - it also appeals to my enjoyment of his movels - esp Hawkmoon) - really like the landing legs.
Triumph of Saint Katherine is another gorgeous model and must buy.
'eavy Bomber is cool and grot bombs also. Not got to play with Aeronautica yet so not auto buy
Mephiston is a lovely model - but hate GWs character model prices.
It's a neat model, but I'll be passing. It's not playable on the table top.
It's base doesn't look any bigger than a knights and the models in it are all walking forwards (or flying). So its visually mobile, at least as much as any other infantry models we get.
It's certainly more diorama than pure model, but it would certainly work on the tabletop. AoS is full of mobile thrones and shrines; meanwhile Krakatos is already appearing on battlefields and he was very much the same (multiple models on a posed base) if not a bit more extreme as his pose is static rather than mobile.
Edit - the new animations are looking very interesting. Still just at the teaser level but still pretty big - though a bit of a shame that a good few look to be quite "jumpy" in animation as opposed to smoothed, but that might just be pre-production and scene selection. The animated kids books will be neat to see GW engaging new and younger fans. Meanwhile the rest look creative and fun. Just hope we get to see lots of Xenos appearing!
It's not the base, it's all the redicilous pointy bits and stuff that is going to break off, combined with the just over the top nonsensical look of it. I see it much more as a diorama, rather than an actual model you'd bring to a game.
ceorron wrote: I don't like the flyer at all, looks far to animalistic. It would really clashes with the current Admech line. Maybe if you they took a Valkyrie swapped the cockpit for the new one and added all the new weapons in roughly the same places I think you would have a much better looking model.
Might be worth the conversion for those that don't like the new model (like me).
So the wings, tail and engines of the Valkyrie with the body for the new flyer and I think you have something that would look much better.
Oh and leave off the legs.
I don't understand the "too animalistic to fit in" critique when you've got Ironstirder/Dragoons and Dunecrawlers skittering about in the same model range.
Spoiler:
EDIT: Even the forgeworld section of the range has animal-looking entries:
Spoiler:
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.
I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.
Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....
Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)
Yeah duff product out of many doesn't really prove anything - I don't deny Forge World has a lot of duff sculpts - in fact there's a lot of problems with Forge World, the point is more that in general, Forge World has a somewhat more refined, nicer style. Most of that time, that is.
Moaning is such a literal non-point. Christ alive, some of you people are so attached to your commodities even passing criticism sees you lose your minds - Marcuse was right.
I don't see it as criticism Blood Reaper. I just see it as people taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss. Art is subjective, some will like it, some wont. Most don't care.
So it's not real criticism? Why? What is not 'taking the piss' (an incredibly broad category btw, because it's a meaningless one).
People who's go to response to problems is 'whining' or 'salt' or 'moaning' openly present themselves as uninterested in discussion that isn't near universally positive imo. It is a non-point - it is a non-sequitur.
gossipmeng wrote: The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.
I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.
The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.
Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.
I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.
Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....
Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)
Yeah duff product out of many doesn't really prove anything - I don't deny Forge World has a lot of duff sculpts - in fact there's a lot of problems with Forge World, the point is more that in general, Forge World has a somewhat more refined, nicer style. Most of that time, that is.
Moaning is such a literal non-point. Christ alive, some of you people are so attached to your commodities even passing criticism sees you lose your minds - Marcuse was right.
I don't see it as criticism Blood Reaper. I just see it as people taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss. Art is subjective, some will like it, some wont. Most don't care.
So it's not real criticism? Why? What is not 'taking the piss' (an incredibly broad category btw, because it's a meaningless one).
People who's go to response to problems is 'whining' or 'salt' or 'moaning' openly present themselves as uninterested in discussion that isn't near universally positive imo. It is a non-point - it is a non-sequitur.
Fair. I never understood the point of "I like" or "I don't Like" comments. Since we're all different, it doesn't seem worth it.
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
Spoiler:
If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
And a real dragonfly for reference.
Spoiler:
Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.
True true.
But it isn't so much about if it would work mechanically in a universe with psychic/magical powers, anything could work in such a world, and more about whether it looks "right".
JBSchroeds wrote: Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.
I'm convinced that our local mosquitos do have some sort of armor plating system as well as laser-cutters. I'm pretty sure if you slap them, they'll laugh and slap you right back.
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
Spoiler:
If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
And a real dragonfly for reference.
Spoiler:
Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.
I smell a Alex Jones episode on this topic soon.
"Dragonfly Technologists at Area 51 have cloned the Anti-Christ and are using the souls of christian children to power their anti-gravity technology! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"
If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
And a real dragonfly for reference.
In fairness this is kind of an issue for pretty much all wings at 28mm scale for larger models. Dragons, angels, aircraft, tyranids - pretty much all have pitifully tiny wings compared to their body size. Otherwise you'd be having wings covering insane amounts of tablespcae; very impractical to play with (and expensive to buy). 6-15mm can be more proportional, or at least has potential to do so as then the size isn't game breaking mechanically not budget breaking (at least until you hit titan sized flying models of course).
Granted I get your point that if the wings were proportionally bigger it might look better. Note that it could also be a photo-thing and that in person the wings appear far bigger in relation to the body and overall.
If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
And a real dragonfly for reference.
In fairness this is kind of an issue for pretty much all wings at 28mm scale for larger models. Dragons, angels, aircraft, tyranids - pretty much all have pitifully tiny wings compared to their body size. Otherwise you'd be having wings covering insane amounts of tablespcae; very impractical to play with (and expensive to buy). 6-15mm can be more proportional, or at least has potential to do so as then the size isn't game breaking mechanically not budget breaking (at least until you hit titan sized flying models of course).
Granted I get your point that if the wings were proportionally bigger it might look better. Note that it could also be a photo-thing and that in person the wings appear far bigger in relation to the body and overall.
Tastyfish wrote: The Ornithopters might be more famously from Dune, but they're also portrayed that way in the John Carter film (not sure if they are ornithopters in the books, but these are books that were written less than 10 years after the Wright Brother's first flight).
The flyers in the books were more like boats with their hulls filled with with a lighter-than-air substance (Burroughs explained it as a ray from the sun that we don't get here on earth because of reasons, that the Martians split off from sunlight and store in tanks). The smaller one-man flyers I always pictured as something like a dirigible jetski.
Galas wrote: But to call it toys, or worse, to say they are designed for children, is just insulting for the people that like those designs,...
Only if you think that being a toy or designed for children makes it inappropriate for adults. (Hint: It doesn't)
I will say though that I don't think it's 'designed for children' so much as GW simply getting better at designing models in the aesthetic that they've pretty much always been aiming for. 40K has been cartoony and over-the-top from the start. It's not realistic sci fi, has never been realistic sci fi, and is not intended to be realistic sci fi. It's fantasy in space, and dialing that up to 11 just makes it better.
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
Spoiler:
If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
And a real dragonfly for reference.
Spoiler:
Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.
Also it looks no less fragile than the friggin Dunestriders.
The Triumph of Saint Katherine is an interesting one. Its a lovely model that really hits the gothic sc-ifi spot. But like Katakros from the Bone reapers in AoS I'm not really sold on it as a gaming piece.
The Archaeopter on the other hand is just flat out great. Its a perfect fit for the retro/pulp sci-fi with a creepy twist theme that the AM have. The only downside is that it could force me to finally commit to a Mechanicus army.
Crimson wrote: The Ad Mech flyer looks great apart the hind legs.Some people just do not seem to get that the theme of Ad Mech is weird steampunk contraptions. They have generated an image of what Ad Mech should be in their heads and are disappointed when the actual models are not as plain and boring than the ones they imagined.
I get that your brand is being incapable of appreciating that anyone can disagree with you without being dumb, insincere, or unreasonable, but seriously man, get over yourself.
And if you can't, then put the blame where it belongs - GW. The way a lot of people "imagined" AdMech comes directly from GW's art, background, and novels prior to the main model line being created. Their theme was never "weird steampunk contraptions" before, it was brutal industrialism combined with techno-body horror.
Emicrania wrote: I think orks will get new Ghazzy and a new mek. That´s it.
'Each book will be accompanied by an epic champion to lead the charge' says you're expecting at least one too many models. Two if Ragnar Primaris happens.
Why a mek anyway? Orks already have 3 plastic mekboyz. A plastic weirdboy would actually be relevant to the (admittedly, entirely theoretical) theme of the campaign, and there are currently zero, just the finecast one.
Voss wrote: Why a mek anyway? Orks already have 3 plastic mekboyz. A plastic weirdboy would actually be relevant to the (admittedly, entirely theoretical) theme of the campaign, and there are currently zero, just the finecast one.
Because the KFF mek is a central element of the ork army and is currently out of a model because the metal model was unable to handle finecast and was therefore discontinue. However, the new CA lists a "Big Mek with Kustom Force Field" which is currently not a datasheet that exists. Therefore we assume that the new model might be that mek.
GoatboyBeta wrote: The Triumph of Saint Katherine is an interesting one. Its a lovely model that really hits the gothic sc-ifi spot. But like Katakros from the Bone reapers in AoS I'm not really sold on it as a gaming piece.
Although similar in various ways, I vastly prefer the Triumph to Katakros as a gaming piece. The base size is a fair bit smaller, but more than that, the figures are actually in motion. Katakros and friends moving across the battlefield just looks wrong to me, given that it's a fully stationary diorama.
I get that your brand is being incapable of appreciating that anyone can disagree with you without being dumb, insincere, or unreasonable, but seriously man, get over yourself.
I am not begrudging anyone for disliking it, but you don't need to make up bs to try to make your dislike seem somehow objective.
And if you can't, then put the blame where it belongs - GW. The way a lot of people "imagined" AdMech comes directly from GW's art, background, and novels prior to the main model line being created. Their theme was never "weird steampunk contraptions" before, it was brutal industrialism combined with techno-body horror.
Body horror sure, brutal Industrialism, not so much. Even in the original Rogue Trader where things more scify and less gothic the Ad Mech was already baroque and weird. They have always had very distinctly retro look, even before the steampunk was a thing. If you expected these guys to have some sleek scifi vehicles you were deluding yourself. This is yet again a situation where you think GW is wrong by not adhering to your headcanon.
Emicrania wrote: I think orks will get new Ghazzy and a new mek. That´s it.
Well it said “reborn” ( The Lion?) “reimagined” (Ghazghull?) and “new” (new Tau character?)
That’s my thoughts
I’d imagine reborn is someone going through the Primaris project if anything.
That said reborn could be Ragnar or whoever.
The Lion could fit New just as easy.
Remember he’s just asleep.
Guilliman you could argue was reborn as he was mortally wounded etc.
But the Lion is just missing to them, and sleeping to us.
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
n.
Well, it's not just animalistic. I think it takes strong inspiration from Renaissance sketches for flying machines (predominantly Leonardo Da Vinci), which admittedly were largely inspired by observation of animals. Still, the detour is important, I think.
The flyer looks...okay? I don't play Admech, but I'm curious to see what people do with it (i.e. most stuff looks better painted by gamers than GW - so let's see the commission studios paint em up).
The triumph is gak-stupid, but I feel that way about any model you can't transport...and any immobile model that moves around the table. Why a huge marble piece with a throne/chair? If it's immobile I'll dislike it 30% less. That model just screams "feth you!" to people who want to travel with it to tournaments. Really despise wargaming models done like that, a direction GW is increasingly going in.
Will it serve as some good painting competition diorama? Sure. As a wargaming miniature? gak-stupid.
Elbows wrote: The flyer looks...okay? I don't play Admech, but I'm curious to see what people do with it (i.e. most stuff looks better painted by gamers than GW - so let's see the commission studios paint em up).
The triumph is gak-stupid, but I feel that way about any model you can't transport...and any immobile model that moves around the table. Why a huge marble piece with a throne/chair? If it's immobile I'll dislike it 30% less. That model just screams "feth you!" to people who want to travel with it to tournaments. Really despise wargaming models done like that, a direction GW is increasingly going in.
Will it serve as some good painting competition diorama? Sure. As a wargaming miniature? gak-stupid.
iit's not a throne or a chair at the center. It's a requilary containing the remains of saint Katherine.
remember those pictures of the Ark of the covenant in Raiders of the lost ark? take that general idea... and 40kize it.
I'm not saying I disagree that it could be awkward to transport, (we'll have to see how it works) but the idea of it, is absolutely in keeping with the SoBs
It took you an entire day to show off 3 models we hadn't seen, one we had seen in progress, and make a trailer for some more Codex update campaign books? Fascinating...
ceorron wrote: I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me.
I completely get where you're coming from, but that's actually the reason I like it so much.
As I said a few pages back, I love the idea that the AdMech hand out all the normal "boring" stuff to the Imperium at large, but save the more technologically interesting/superior stuff for themselves.
"Yes, yes. Enjoy your 'Valkyrie' with its 'turbines' and 'control surfaces'... meanwhile, look what we can do!!!" *Ornithopter flies/flaps overhead at the same speed as the Valk, somehow*
Kanluwen wrote: From Tom Walton's Twitter feed(he and Jes Goodwin designed the Archaeocopter):
Jesus. The pilot even looks like a dwarf with that cable beard. The design is interesting but too impractical. It doesnt look fast at all and looks like it can get shot down too easily. Most importantly, it doesnt fit the admech that well. Its the wings and tail that make it look like a WHFB Dwarf or Empire flier.
The Admech worship and only use working STC files. Does the Archeaopter look like a flier that would have been designed the Dark Age of Technology? If the Admech were more free in their tinkering I would understand, but they are strict to the point that if this vehicle isnt true to the original STC design, it would not be widespread across the entire Cult Mechanicus.
I guess I need to see some fluff first though, but judging by whats already established this flier doesnt make sense. Also, wtf is with this heavy stubber fetish? Why the hell are the Admech using so many of them? People say theyndont belong with Space Marines, but heavy stubber work even less with Admech... I remember when Skitarii and Cult Mech first came out. Everybody was looking at those crazy brand new weapons and vehicles like arc rifles and Dunecrawlers. They evoked a real sense of mystery and mastery over archaeotech while blending it with just enough steam punk that they look unique.
This copter, besides the legs, which are totally fitting for Admech, looks too primitive. It litteraly looks like its steam powered. Its interesting and on its own I like it, but as the first flier for AM, it kind of dissapointing and worrying.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because Striders are super practical and you complain about them too!
Dunestriders actually look like they work. This doesnt. Hell, even the shape of stormravens and the lack of suspensions and clearence on the leman russ tank dont bother me as much as this design.
If I can imagine how a model works the way its portrayed or showed, then its a pass. I dont think this copter even has forward thrusters!
Looking at the Admech aircraft, it shouldn't take much to replace the wings with some from another kit. I think the Marine Stormtalon might be okay.
If not, you could probably go and find some cheap model planes and use their wings to do a conversion.
I don't really dig the wings, myself. I don't play admech, but I can see how it'd irk some people. When someone told me they had an Admech flyer, the mental image I got was something... maybe with larger wings.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Has anyone mentioned the fact that the new flyer appears to be on a giant version of the new flightstands, and not the old flyer stands?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Because Striders are super practical and you complain about them too!
Dunestriders actually look like they work. This doesnt. Hell, even the shape of stormravens and the lack of suspensions and clearence on the leman russ tank dont bother me as much as this design.
If I can imagine how a model works the way its portrayed or showed, then its a pass. I dont think this copter even has forward thrusters!
If you imagine it as more of a helicopter gunship than a plane, it looks like it functions. The wings appear to me to be bendable which would grant higher maneuverability at low speeds (such as during low altitude ops) compared to an aileron/spoileron wing. The only real reason we haven’t delved into morphing wings more is because we don’t have the right material to pull it off. Being able to change a wing’s shape mid flight has huge aerodynamic potential, and humans would naturally experiment on it should a suitable wing material be invented (possibly during the DAOT).
In addition the turbo jet engine (which has an intake at the top and 2 thrusters at the back) can point downwards, like a harrier, thus allowing for VTOL. This is idea reinforced by the landing gear which are not wheels, but are more like a helicopter’s. The legs might provide suspension for the landings which would otherwise be rough (since once you switch to VTOL, the aircraft is unstable and it’s safer to just fall) and could also provide a means of additional upward momentum when taking off.
As I see it, this plane is not intended for supersonic flight (which would be impossible) instead it is there to fly low and provide direct fire support to ground troops. It can therefore be seen as more of a helicopter than a plane. It’s like an osprey, essentially, but potentially safer.
Of course, it might not be the best design, but the AdMech could have found an experimental STC on it and the rest is history.
It’s also supposed to look like the archaeopteryx, which is where it got its name (I assume).
ThirstySpaceMan wrote: Love the flier. Seems like that with the rumor engine pic, could mean admec jump troops? This wing doesn't match the flier wing. It also seems to small for a vehicle.
How can you possibly determine that? You're seeing a close-up of part of something, with nothing to provide any sense of scale.
ThirstySpaceMan wrote: Love the flier. Seems like that with the rumor engine pic, could mean admec jump troops? This wing doesn't match the flier wing. It also seems to small for a vehicle.
How can you possibly determine that? You're seeing a close-up of part of something, with nothing to provide any sense of scale.
It does have a pilot, guns (particularly the side blister stubber barrel, since the same thing is on the transport) and a base to provide a sense of scale...
Huh. That isn't the 92x120 flying base (which most flyers are on), its too elongated. It looks more like the 170x105 base- the knight base.
The only other real option would be the 105x70, which is used by the ghost keel, and by the pilot alone, the base isn't that small.
The Wings on the flyer just looks wrong, sort of just not really functinal for what they are going for.
Seems to me like it should have thrust of some kind on the front as well.
As the wings themselves do not look like they could move to flap, not to they move right for storage.
Ideas to make something awesome, but its kinda meh and mix of a few ideas. The rest i think does look interesting, Do not really like the side guns on it.
You know, no one is wrong for not liking the ad mech flyer. I think it looks ok but I can see why it wouldn't be for everyone and I'm sure I won't love the cost or trying to store it if I ever get one.
For my money the Guard Valk and the Deathwatch Corvus are two of the best looking flyers to date, for me. Honorable mention I like the DE flyers as well.
It's ok if people think they look off or not cool, it's ok to still like them yourself. This hobby is so linked to visual I can see not getting a model you find ugly and really the ad mech flyer isn't a visual everyone will love.
Like for me I like the Kast Robots, some hate them, but I dig the sci fi robot look to them from tales to astonish ! I can get why people wouldn't like them however, it's all taste and no one is right or wrong.
Kind of meh about the releases, wondering how I'll handle the sisters releases which for me they look mostly amazing.
Elbows wrote: The triumph is gak-stupid, but I feel that way about any model you can't transport...and any immobile model that moves around the table. Why a huge marble piece with a throne/chair? If it's immobile I'll dislike it 30% less. That model just screams "feth you!" to people who want to travel with it to tournaments. Really despise wargaming models done like that, a direction GW is increasingly going in.
It's a procession. The two lower cherubs are carrying the remains of St Kathy in an open casket, it is not on the ground. And the lady at the back appears to just be standing on the ground, with an elaborate back-banner (as can be seen in the video). The two figures in the forefront of the picture are clearly walking. The only huge marble piece is just.. where they happen to be walking; possibly a platform they are descending from (difficult to make out).
Apple fox wrote: The Wings on the flyer just looks wrong, sort of just not really functinal for what they are going for.
Seems to me like it should have thrust of some kind on the front as well.
As the wings themselves do not look like they could move to flap, not to they move right for storage.
Ideas to make something awesome, but its kinda meh and mix of a few ideas. The rest i think does look interesting, Do not really like the side guns on it.
The wings aren’t intended to flap. It flies like a normal plane with a jet engine (which is on top), except the pilot can morph the wings in order to optimize them for any phase of flight.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Has anyone mentioned the fact that the new flyer appears to be on a giant version of the new flightstands, and not the old flyer stands?
I really hope that thing can support the weight well, and doesn’t snap every 2 seconds. At least the way it attaches is far superior to the smaller once.
It took you an entire day to show off 3 models we hadn't seen, one we had seen in progress, and make a trailer for some more Codex update campaign books? Fascinating...
To be fair, it’s not what the evens about.
No complaints from people there.
I mean I’m with you in that I wanted to see more, but that’s just from the sidelines, people I know that made it there said it was a blast.
The Admech worship and only use working STC files. Does the Archeaopter look like a flier that would have been designed the Dark Age of Technology? If the Admech were more free in their tinkering I would understand, but they are strict to the point that if this vehicle isnt true to the original STC design, it would not be widespread across the entire Cult Mechanicus.
I will have check my copy of RT but pretty sure that this sort of design was present at the very start of 40k as a Imperial flyer
ImAGeek wrote: Better pic of the stand, if you’re interested:
Spoiler:
Oh, thank you for that. I actually like the broader base at the bottom. Might make things a little more stable, assuming the new stem isn't hopelessly fragile.
Bloody hell how many pages of arguing over a flyer do we need?
I don't like it, personally, because I don't feel it fits with the 40k aesthetic in that it looks too fragile to go to war. Not that anyone should care either way about my opinion on the model lol. Its an opinion only.
Ad Mech have enjoyed a fair few releases this edition, someone in the studio is clearly enjoying working on them and pushing their development. It's a shame other factions don't have such a champion.
At least this large stand has something that slots into the model. I despise the new glue-on curved stands for jetbike/jump models so much, normal plastic glue takes forever to do anything, so you pretty much have to superglue them...at a tiny connection spot, so it's guaranteed to snap.
Anyway, I like the dune ornithopter, none of the 40k vehicles make the slightest sense, so why start now
It's our first look at a new model, that's how it goes people say they like it people say they don't people argue about weather it fits the 40k aestetic. the norm
Anyway, I like the dune ornithopter, none of the 40k vehicles make the slightest sense, so why start now
that feels like a cop-out to me. I don't care for the vehicle as of yet, but i see where the inspiration comes from, and can reason WHY it's here. doesn't mean when i think of "mechanicus" this kind of thing would come to mind. granted the first hting i think of when i hear "new mechanicus" is just the word "odd."
but a a fair few 40k vehicles i think do make sense, or at least have close analogues to our stuff nowadays (looks at ork vehicles and IG), and keeping some level of sense instead of just going "DAH! ITS 40K! OVER DA TOP!" all the time feels like it loses meaning to the crazy moments and the potential not crazy ones. if everythings like that, then to me, nothing is.
Unless we're talking slaanesh related stuff. that stuff really needs to look even more like a bad fever dream. preferably with more musical instruments.
it's like how one of the main reasons i even remotely like the ToSK is because the sisters on the model have a more serene feel than the vast majority of the other sisters in the current release, who based on their heads and posture are more likely in the middle of a fight and screaming constantly. or maybe i just don't like dynamic posing. not sure.
..or that new "Repentia superior". glyck. the one in the limited box has a better look to me because she has neat back braziers and doesn't look like she's staring into your soul in rage.
IG vehicles are all decades old (besides the occasional taurox and/or upgrade sprue) and even they don't really look functional, they look like someone saw a BMP or that non-existent german tank from Indiana Jones 2 (the one that was just british WWI tank with turret on it) and decided to make it worse and yes, over the top. GW pretty much abandoned the "realistic" approach to design in 4th edition imo.
fair enough i suppose. this kind of stuff in models is rather subjective. to me though, i feel more kits now are crossing a line for me. Realistic and sensible are not the same things themselves as i see it.
Just feels to me that there's a kind of logic in 40k, maybe a twisted one, that is increasingly being ignored and ive heard the "It's over the top!" so much lately it's turning into something where im trying to figure out what people even mean by it, just like when i hear "so 40k" for a new model. at this point it feels to me like its happened so often its just handing a blank check for any new thing to just automatically get a pass.
Guess im just hoping for some more variance im not seeing? I don't know.
I mean, if you look at 40k art, it was always over the top. That was the whole theme and point. The models were usually blander, much more so than the artwork, due to technical limitations. Now that GW has CAD, 3D printing and all the other toys, they can finally play with braziers, smoke effects and see-through stained glass canopies for the SoB tanks. To me anyway, it wasn't so much artistic as purely technical limitations that made the models not match the art style.
I wasn't expecting nor the grasshopper flyer neither a 40k manga but...why not ? I won't watch it as I really dislike manga but if some enjoy it, I will have Angels of Death anyway ! Quite surprised by so many media adaptations tbh.
The flyer grew on me and I think I like it now, even if I would replace the wings but smth closer to metallic wings. And the Adepta Sororita model is brilliant, it's gonna be a wonderful centric piece for an army !
Cronch wrote: IG vehicles are all decades old (besides the occasional taurox and/or upgrade sprue) and even they don't really look functional, they look like someone saw a BMP or that non-existent german tank from Indiana Jones 2 (the one that was just british WWI tank with turret on it) and decided to make it worse and yes, over the top. GW pretty much abandoned the "realistic" approach to design in 4th edition imo.
40k has never been realistic in it's weapons and armor design. it's ALWAYS been "rule of cool"
The Admech worship and only use working STC files. Does the Archeaopter look like a flier that would have been designed the Dark Age of Technology? If the Admech were more free in their tinkering I would understand, but they are strict to the point that if this vehicle isnt true to the original STC design, it would not be widespread across the entire Cult Mechanicus.
I will have check my copy of RT but pretty sure that this sort of design was present at the very start of 40k as a Imperial flyer
Still not a fan of the model, but this is doing the rounds on Reddit to give a little insight into the design (and also confirm the transport capacity. Sorry guys!).
There were likely multiple sketch designs before one was chosen to be made. The various different versions might have been big differences or even just minor variations along the same theme. This is just number 2 that got chosen; could be there was a dozen or more designs suggested.
It really does look like it’s kinda designed not to have wings, and the wings are what I think most look off about it.
I think they needed to go back for redesign. As others have said they looking like they where going for some kinda of bug wing, but I think they just wholly missed that mark on the rest of the design being ok.
Not a fan of the thrusters being in a position to burn everything since for landing they would need to be able to point forward and down, 4 would have been better than the wings I think or supplement the bug wing design with some kinda of ball joint on the wings.
Grimtuff wrote: Still not a fan of the model, but this is doing the rounds on Reddit to give a little insight into the design (and also confirm the transport capacity. Sorry guys!).
Overread wrote: There were likely multiple sketch designs before one was chosen to be made. The various different versions might have been big differences or even just minor variations along the same theme. This is just number 2 that got chosen; could be there was a dozen or more designs suggested.
Or it might have been a note that this was part of a second planned release.
May 2015 is the date listed there, Skitarii went up for preorder in March of 2015 and went into April. I bought most of my stuff 'off the shelf' when it dropped instead of preordering, but the codex at least I know was a preorder on April 3rd 2015.
Grimtuff wrote: It says in the top right corner "5 man transport".
Yeah and I'm looking at where it says "Skitarii II", which is interesting.
Here's hoping for a more robust Skitarii release, perhaps with a second robot, and this guy.
Honestly, I think we're getting close to good on Skitarii themselves. We need a Primus/"Overseer", which is something constantly mentioned in the lore yet ignored.
As of right now, we have three profiles outstanding for the AdMech with no book:
Dunerider, Disintegrator, and the Manipulus. The flappitydoo will bring us up to 6.
There's also the Archaeotech and the Servitor X-101 from Combat Arena/Escalation that could potentially add some non-Martian characters.
Here is Jes’s drawing of the wing for those who are curious. Almost 5 years from final concept to release. Makes you wonder what they are working on now.
Makes me wonder how the Taurox can make it to sale honestly. No one in the design studio went, why are we making it this way ? If it was in design stages for as long.
You think that's bizarre...look at some real-life cars. Vehicles that involves hundreds of millions of dollars of investment....and they end up looking absolutely gak.
Apple fox wrote: Makes me wonder how the Taurox can make it to sale honestly. No one in the design studio went, why are we making it this way ? If it was in design stages for as long.
In the eye of the beholder I guess - I hate many recent models - latest version of Wolfen, Taurox, Centurions, Stormsurge, Marine Mini-flyers, Grey Knights Baby Carrier, Santa Logan, Crisis Suits but they are liked by some.
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
n.
Well, it's not just animalistic. I think it takes strong inspiration from Renaissance sketches for flying machines (predominantly Leonardo Da Vinci), which admittedly were largely inspired by observation of animals. Still, the detour is important, I think.
Yeah I can see the inspiration there. But that means it really doesn't fit with the Admech vehicles which do have a more insect/animal inspirations.
In the eye of the beholder I guess - I hate many recent models - latest version of Wolfen, Taurox, Centurions, Stormsurge, Marine Mini-flyers, Grey Knights Baby Carrier, Santa Logan, Crisis Suits but they are liked by some.
GW will never reach the highs and crushing lows that are possibly in "high" fantasy with your insightful reliance on "taste".
Apple fox wrote: Makes me wonder how the Taurox can make it to sale honestly. No one in the design studio went, why are we making it this way ? If it was in design stages for as long.
The design stage is quite likely fairly quick once they know what they're attempting to do.
It's getting things into production where it gets sticky. A big part of the reasoning for the new factory machinery is production snarls.
Also, the Taurox works. Not everyone might like it, but it's best to remember that the intention wasn't for it to strictly be a Guard vehicle. It's a Tempestus vehicle as well, and the Prime is wonderfully wacky Imperial design.
Chikout wrote: Here is Jes’s drawing of the wing for those who are curious. Almost 5 years from final concept to release. Makes you wonder what they are working on now.
That sketch reveals the wing from the rumor engine doesn't it? The lighter penciled smaller wing? Looks like its an alternate build component for the Archeopter.
Chikout wrote: Here is Jes’s drawing of the wing for those who are curious. Almost 5 years from final concept to release. Makes you wonder what they are working on now.
That sketch reveals the wing from the rumor engine doesn't it? The lighter penciled smaller wing? Looks like its an alternate build component for the Archeopter.
I think that’s the legs, which also have little fins on. They don’t match the rumour engine though, and the rumour engine part didn’t show up on any of the built versions at the event (and it looked like they had all versions built there).
The problem with the flyer is it doesn't look like a front line combat unit.
The personal transport of a magi, used to hop between one forge and another it makes sense, but flying into gun fire?
No, not so much.
ImAGeek wrote: Better pic of the stand, if you’re interested:
Spoiler:
Oh, thank you for that. I actually like the broader base at the bottom. Might make things a little more stable, assuming the new stem isn't hopelessly fragile.
I think the new stem is designed asa better way to storage for traveling it seems the upper side (the crux that goes into the flyer) can be detached from the joint ball on the stem and the flyer storaged while the stem is carried elsewhere thus not damaging the the model when reataching the stem.
It also grants a bit more modelling positions if the upper part can be rotated along the joint in order to make the flyer look like strafing or dodging unlike current stems.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because it seems to have adjustable wings (hinges) on both wings as well as hydraulic like ligaments. The wings looks lite, made of cloth material, like you might use in a vehicle meant to flap (hence the wings being made out of lighter material than steal). If you had a fixed wing may as well make them from steal?
Also both of the inspirations have flapping wings (Leonardo Da Vinci drawing and insect/dragonfly).
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?
Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?
Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.
I'm not being pedantic. You seem unreasonably irritated that I've pointed out that it's called an Archaeopter and not an Ornithopter. Just because it reminds people of Dune, that doesn't make it an Ornithopter. If it flies like a bird, they could have called it an Ornithopter. They've called it an Archaeptor, indicating that it utilises some sort of archaic technology to stay airbourne. No, I don't 'get off' by pointing this out. Calm down please.
Tamereth wrote: The problem with the flyer is it doesn't look like a front line combat unit.
The personal transport of a magi, used to hop between one forge and another it makes sense, but flying into gun fire?
No, not so much.
Most helicopters look pretty fragile except the really meaty ones like the Hind D. This seems to fulfill a similar role as these:
Spoiler:
I like it but its seems to be a marmite model - which is cool
Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.
Huh, it has transport capacity?
Maybe throw Rustalkers in there and they can do something for once in their useless existence. Of course without a better way to propel melee units at the enemy who cares?
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
It doesn't need to. The inspiration and basis for the model is clear. Same way that 'Tolkien orc, dwarf and elf' serve as inspirations for warhammer, but don't need to be inserted on the relevant store pages.
Nor does a Leman Russ need 'it's a WWI tank' scribbled in the margins.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.
Is this still a thing in the current military? Likely operate in a similar way maybe they use magnetic clams or similar? I think Skitarii ride on the outside of many Ad Mech vechicles?
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Ornithopters flap, and this takes cues from that as part of it's name. Also didn't Da Vinci's flying machine flap as well? And that is the inspiration for the wings.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Archaeopter, Greek for "ancient wing". I'll give you three guesses what it's named after. And that definitely did fly by flapping its wings, sorta.
We use the root Latin word "planus" to describe the wings on fixed-wing aircraft, as their role is to act as a flat, immobile lift surface. We use the Greek "-pter" (wing, feather) to differentiate systems where a moving wing provides lift. "Helicopter" for example
It's clearly a thing with moving wings, as both the model and name show.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Archaeopter, Greek for "ancient wing". I'll give you three guesses what it's named after. And that definitely did fly by flapping its wings, sorta.
We use the root Latin word "planus" to describe the wings on fixed-wing aircraft, as their role is to act as a flat, immobile lift surface. We use the Greek "-pter" (wing, feather) to differentiate systems where a moving wing provides lift. "Helicopter" for example
It's clearly a thing with moving wings, as both the model and name show.
Well, whilst we're pretty sure that Pigs did have wings - current thinking is that these were really just for steering and they flew more like a dirigible using internal gas sacs (or possibly a volatile liquid which would need to warm in the sun after a cold night, giving rise to the famous phrase for when you're putting something off til later in the day).
The Admech worship and only use working STC files. Does the Archeaopter look like a flier that would have been designed the Dark Age of Technology? If the Admech were more free in their tinkering I would understand, but they are strict to the point that if this vehicle isnt true to the original STC design, it would not be widespread across the entire Cult Mechanicus.
I will have check my copy of RT but pretty sure that this sort of design was present at the very start of 40k as a Imperial flyer
it looks like it came straight out of the pages of RT and I love it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nightlord1987 wrote: Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.
Huh, it has transport capacity?
Maybe throw Rustalkers in there and they can do something for once in their useless existence. Of course without a better way to propel melee units at the enemy who cares?
Apple fox wrote: It really does look like it’s kinda designed not to have wings,.
Not sure where you're getting that idea. They're just not shown on the side view so that the design can focus on the fuselage details, but the barrel mount for the wings is right there in the pic.
Tastyfish wrote: Well, whilst we're pretty sure that Pigs did have wings - current thinking is that these were really just for steering and they flew more like a dirigible using internal gas sacs (or possibly a volatile liquid which would need to warm in the sun after a cold night, giving rise to the famous phrase for when you're putting something off til later in the day).
Someone else saw the kids film Flight of Dragons I see
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?
Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.
I'm not being pedantic. You seem unreasonably irritated that I've pointed out that it's called an Archaeopter and not an Ornithopter. Just because it reminds people of Dune, that doesn't make it an Ornithopter. If it flies like a bird, they could have called it an Ornithopter. They've called it an Archaeptor, indicating that it utilises some sort of archaic technology to stay airbourne. No, I don't 'get off' by pointing this out. Calm down please.
Weird hill you’ve chosen to die on. It’s blatantly an Ornithopter-referencing design and name but with a a copywritable name. It’s fairly obvious.
Galas wrote: Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...
Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.
Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.
Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.
It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.
Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?
Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.
I'm not being pedantic. You seem unreasonably irritated that I've pointed out that it's called an Archaeopter and not an Ornithopter. Just because it reminds people of Dune, that doesn't make it an Ornithopter. If it flies like a bird, they could have called it an Ornithopter. They've called it an Archaeptor, indicating that it utilises some sort of archaic technology to stay airbourne. No, I don't 'get off' by pointing this out. Calm down please.
Weird hill you’ve chosen to die on. It’s blatantly an Ornithopter-referencing design and name but with a a copywritable name. It’s fairly obvious.
What are you talking about? I'm not dying on a hill. I've accepted it's an ornithopter. Have you not bothered reading the rest of the thread?
But you were being pedantic. It was eminently clear what it was meant to be, what it was referencing, and you went on and on about how it wasn't despite how clear it was, and did so in a nit-picky and dare we say pedantic manner.
(And now I'm being pedantic about you being pedantic! )
Someone probably said it already but personally, the 40k ornithopter doesn't tickle my fancy and looks butt ugly. I would prefer not to have it on the table against me. But it wouldn't stop me playing a game probably.
It feels more like they made it for AOS but then decided to stick some 40k guns on it because IOM needed more releases in a schedule?
Kind of surprised to see so much dislike of the AdMech ornithopter. I love it! But then again I love most of the AdMech stuff because of it’s bizarre, retro feel.
Manchu wrote: Kind of surprised to see so much dislike of the AdMech ornithopter. I love it! But then again I love most of the AdMech stuff because of it’s bizarre, retro feel.
at this point I'm convinced GW could put out an image of a squad of beakie marines, tell us it's a new unit and you'd see posters here arguing it's hidious and doesn't aesteticly belong in 40k
folks have differing opinions tis the way it goes. honestly what I've always loved about 40k is the sheer varity of stylings among the armies. there's something for everyone
JWBS wrote: Fck are you talking about? I'm not dying on a hill. I've accepted it's an ornithopter. Have you not bothered reading the rest of the thread?
If you have accepted that it's an ornithopter, maybe saying that, instead of arguing over what it was called might have been more productive.
SO, if we're all on the same page now, let's leave the pedantry there, folks, and get back to talking about the actual models.
Manchu wrote: Kind of surprised to see so much dislike of the AdMech ornithopter. I love it! But then again I love most of the AdMech stuff because of it’s bizarre, retro feel.
at this point I'm convinced GW could put out an image of a squad of beakie marines, tell us it's a new unit and you'd see posters here arguing it's hidious and doesn't aesteticly belong in 40k
folks have differing opinions tis the way it goes. honestly what I've always loved about 40k is the sheer varity of stylings among the armies. there's something for everyone
It's interesting to see what people accept and what they don't. Honestly, I can see how people might have expected something a bit more 'industrial' here, but it's cool to see GW taking a less obvious angle, and it still fits in to the general AdMech vibe, for me. The only thing I don't like about it is the door guns sticking straight out sideways, partly because they look a bit awkward, and partly because they look like they would get in the way of the legs. It's a small point, though, and easily remedied by just leaving off the door guns...
