warboss wrote:
So that's why my awesome Artel chaos apothecary has no rules!?!

Hush you! Remember, in the HHHobby, if there are no rules, there are no models!

In that case, I'm going to have to break the news to my Chapterhouse thunderchibihawk that he's not playable!

 Grimskul wrote:
Gotta love how they're hyping up a model that's only real selling point is being equipped with a power sword rather than a bolt rifle...

Malibu Stacey's gotta have her new hat!

 Gert wrote:
... and the Datasheets show you all the options you can take in one place...

No they don't. Datasheets are less convenient as they put the points elsewhere. You still have plenty of units with options that have to go to a separate page in the book for what weapons they can take, and a further separate page for the points costs for said weapons.

Betting that the extra option(s) is a helmet?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Betting that the extra option(s) is a helmet?

I'd guess at least 1 helmet, a bolt rifle with the bits to make all 3 variants, and a chain sword and or power fist.

Power sword is the only option for the Ancient.
Lol.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/01/27/get-your-new-space-marines-heroes-onto-the-tabletop-with-these-free-datasheets-from-vigilus-alone/

Well, it is rather reasonable of them to make the datasheet available for free.

Also, the gravis fighting styles are a nice addition and makes the second melee weapon to seem far less superfluous. (Someone mathammer the options, please.)

But still no sign of normal Primaris Captain datasheet update that would them let use the power sword and plasma pistol combo, that the magazine exclusive model has...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oh, the gravis captain's power swords is no longer master-crafted! That's unfortunate.

 Crimson wrote:

Oh, the gravis captain's power swords is no longer master-crafted! That's unfortunate.

That's an odd choice. I was thinking he looked like an interesting option until you pointed that out.

The Black Adder wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Oh, the gravis captain's power swords is no longer master-crafted! That's unfortunate.

That's an odd choice. I was thinking he looked like an interesting option until you pointed that out.

Honestly there wasn't a lot of times you'd want to swing with the MC Power Sword compared to the Power Fist. I'd rather have the two extra swings even with D1

I'm willing to bet that they'll FAQ it to work with the original setup of a MC powersword.

They could have simply increased his base attacks by one but why do that when we can have yet more rules for single models.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Oh, the gravis captain's power swords is no longer master-crafted! That's unfortunate.

That's an odd choice. I was thinking he looked like an interesting option until you pointed that out.

Honestly there wasn't a lot of times you'd want to swing with the MC Power Sword compared to the Power Fist. I'd rather have the two extra swings even with D1

Well a MC power sword doesn't have -1 to hit, that's really useful. Also I imagined that if he had a MC power sword he'd also have a MC power fist. It just seems odd, that the chapter armoury is picking on this one captain and refusing to give him the good stuff.

Veldrain wrote:
They could have simply increased his base attacks by one but why do that when we can have yet more rules for single models.

Because, genius, then A.) various captain statlines wouldn't be consistent, and more importantly B.) people would just use all attacks with the most expensive weapon instead of increasing anti-chaff one making model too killy plus C.) the extra attacks would work on relics creating yet more broken wombo combos.

I like how GW finally tries to balance options making relics less of a no-brainer and give primaris access to melee (badly, but it's better than nothing) yet people whine about the actually good changes with no effort of actually thinking just why these were made

The Black Adder wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Oh, the gravis captain's power swords is no longer master-crafted! That's unfortunate.

That's an odd choice. I was thinking he looked like an interesting option until you pointed that out.

Honestly there wasn't a lot of times you'd want to swing with the MC Power Sword compared to the Power Fist. I'd rather have the two extra swings even with D1

Well a MC power sword doesn't have -1 to hit, that's really useful. Also I imagined that if he had a MC power sword he'd also have a MC power fist. It just seems odd, that the chapter armoury is picking on this one captain and refusing to give him the good stuff.

Keep in mind there still wasn't a lot of reason to use it mathematically unless it was a SUPER light target. Then we have 9th with the silly mod cap, so that Gauntlet won't ever get less accurate.

Haven't had the inclination to buy a single primaris unit, but if they released terminators for them, I'd sell a kidney to get some. I know there is Gravis armour, it doesn't look bad, but TDA is where its at for me, always loved it. Best fething super heavy armour ever designed in SF

The new Standard Bearer comes with two banners, and nearly enough arms to allow you to build 2 to make use of all the bits, so long as you have a spare Marine body laying about, but they stop you doing that easily by putting part of left arm onto the chest piece.

So you have two comlete right arms, and 2 half complete left arms to cater to each build. Design wise it doesnt appear like it would make a difference on their end if they had put out a clean chest piece and complete left arms for each build option - that would have been the modeller friendly option. Their way, you need to carve up a second left arm to make the piece you'd need - seems bloody petty.

They don't want you to make two standard bearers from one kit. They want you to buy two kits.

I haven't seen the piece in question, but would making a mold from green stuff be an option?

Seems possible, but cutting up a spare arm is likely an easier solution. It's not as if Primaris kits come with any shortage of them.

 FrothingMuppet wrote:
The new Standard Bearer comes with two banners, and nearly enough arms to allow you to build 2 to make use of all the bits, so long as you have a spare Marine body laying about, but they stop you doing that easily by putting part of left arm onto the chest piece.

Yeah, I don't get this. Why is GW marketing so stupid? The alt banner pose is vastly better than the gak they shown, hiding it to the point my friend who looked at buying the model had no idea it exists (I had to tell him to scroll photos to the end) is dumb. Especially seeing the picture they use to promote it has ugly bald head and boring, standard pose you can easily make from dozen other banner kits while second pose is unique and cool.

Ditto with gravis captain, he has three heads (including masked way better than ugly bald head they used in photos) yet the only way to see it exists is to look at the sprues, GW had to pick worst looking bits again

 Dysartes wrote:
I haven't seen the piece in question, but would making a mold from green stuff be an option?

Easily, seeing the arm would be mostly hidden under pad/banner. But according to usual complainers, GW will shoot you if you do that or something. Somehow conversions are verboten these days

 Irbis wrote:

Yeah, I don't get this. Why is GW marketing so stupid? The alt banner pose is vastly better than the gak they shown, hiding it to the point my friend who looked at buying the model had no idea it exists (I had to tell him to scroll photos to the end) is dumb. Especially seeing the picture they use to promote it has ugly bald head and boring, standard pose you can easily make from dozen other banner kits while second pose is unique and cool.

To prove your point: what alt pose pic, where? I can't find it...

 Crimson wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Yeah, I don't get this. Why is GW marketing so stupid? The alt banner pose is vastly better than the gak they shown, hiding it to the point my friend who looked at buying the model had no idea it exists (I had to tell him to scroll photos to the end) is dumb. Especially seeing the picture they use to promote it has ugly bald head and boring, standard pose you can easily make from dozen other banner kits while second pose is unique and cool.

To prove your point: what alt pose pic, where? I can't find it...

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/space-marines-primaris-ancient-2022

There is a 360 for each build. Bald with sword, which I agree is the lesser of the two. Helmet on, slung bolter, two hands holding the banner is much better IMHO. Not that I need another guy.

Thank you!

Well dang, that's the first time i'm seeing the alternate pose on that one, GW really didn't like it, huh? But aye, it is quite better than the "stock" one, i say.

Can't you give the helmet to either pose?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can't you give the helmet to either pose?

Aye, it's just on a regular Marine-type ball-joint.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Can't you give the helmet to either pose?

No. If you glue the wrong head on the plastic explodes.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Well dang, that's the first time i'm seeing the alternate pose on that one, GW really didn't like it, huh? But aye, it is quite better than the "stock" one, i say.

By pushing the sword, they have better luck selling him to those of us who have the original one from the 8th starter. Got to have all the wargear options you know…

Looking at the sprue pictures, nice to see that while some of the banner detail is present on the sculpt of the banners, nothing there seems too Chapter-specific.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Well dang, that's the first time i'm seeing the alternate pose on that one, GW really didn't like it, huh? But aye, it is quite better than the "stock" one, i say.

By pushing the sword, they have better luck selling him to those of us who have the original one from the 8th starter. Got to have all the wargear options you know…

I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it. The sword option is there for those who want it and in the unlikely event that someone were to be upset that there is a totally optional different build in the kit and not buy the model because of it, they might just find out about it in spite of GW's genius marketing.

No, really, they could have just led with the sword pose as they did when they previewed the model, but also added a picture of the alternate pose with some praise for how awesome the kit is for having options.

I had no interest in the model at all. Now I do. Turns out, that's all because of Dakka because I didn't even bother to check the store page before reading of an alternate pose here. That's plainly GW marketing not doing its job.

 Geifer wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Well dang, that's the first time i'm seeing the alternate pose on that one, GW really didn't like it, huh? But aye, it is quite better than the "stock" one, i say.

By pushing the sword, they have better luck selling him to those of us who have the original one from the 8th starter. Got to have all the wargear options you know…

I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it. The sword option is there for those who want it and in the unlikely event that someone were to be upset that there is a totally optional different build in the kit and not buy the model because of it, they might just find out about it in spite of GW's genius marketing.

No, really, they could have just led with the sword pose as they did when they previewed the model, but also added a picture of the alternate pose with some praise for how awesome the kit is for having options.

I had no interest in the model at all. Now I do. Turns out, that's all because of Dakka because I didn't even bother to check the store page before reading of an alternate pose here. That's plainly GW marketing not doing its job.

I was trying to think of reasons why they would hide it, and can’t think of any good ones. The one vaguely reasonable excuse I could think of was lack of bandwidth. They have a lot of releases going on right now, so mabey they didn’t have space/time to go into more details on him? But the guy got his own article. There is always incompetence. I suspect the community team were just given the one pic and told to talk him up. It’s not a bad assumption for them that one pose is all they get, so why go digging to see if that’s all there is? At some point the ball was dropped and the correct information didn’t get to the people who needed to have it.

The more I think about it, the more I kinda want this guy now, because of that alt pose. The angle he’s holding the banner gives a sense of movement lacking in most ancients. Even with half the arm on the torso, I think a swap to a running assault intercessor body would be cool and not hard. Charging across the battlefield to the enemy side, colours leading the charge!

 Nevelon wrote:


I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

There is a painted copy on their web page, so they did do one eventually. Could they have painted the main pose first, but didn’t get to the second build until after the article went up? No clue how the timeline on painting goes over there.

It’s not like we are seeing the options only by piecing together bits from sprue pics. He’s standing right there on the webpage.

No clue on the second part, I generally don’t actively follow the review sites.

 Nevelon wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I kinda want this guy now, because of that alt pose. The angle he’s holding the banner gives a sense of movement lacking in most ancients. Even with half the arm on the torso, I think a swap to a running assault intercessor body would be cool and not hard. Charging across the battlefield to the enemy side, colours leading the charge!

Probably a bad idea. Remember the cinematic from Dawn of War? Charging with banner in hand is bad for your health.

 xttz wrote:
The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

They have a painted version of the alternate pose on the store page. They even went to the trouble of making it a 360 picture.

I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

On one hand “Everyone is just standing there, flat on the ground, can we get some more interesting poses?” the other, “Why is everyone standing on a tactical rock?”

I don’t think GW can win on this one. It is nice on models like the Indomunus captain where you had the option for a more involved base, or a simpler one.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

On one hand “Everyone is just standing there, flat on the ground, can we get some more interesting poses?” the other, “Why is everyone standing on a tactical rock?”

I don’t think GW can win on this one. It is nice on models like the Indomunus captain where you had the option for a more involved base, or a simpler one.

Yeah but when literally everyone is standing one foot on a tiny rock that's not contributing anything to his pose, outside of the ankle looking a bit broken, it's not more interesting it's just dumb.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

On one hand “Everyone is just standing there, flat on the ground, can we get some more interesting poses?” the other, “Why is everyone standing on a tactical rock?”

I don’t think GW can win on this one. It is nice on models like the Indomunus captain where you had the option for a more involved base, or a simpler one.

Yeah but when literally everyone is standing one foot on a tiny rock that's not contributing anything to his pose, outside of the ankle looking a bit broken, it's not more interesting it's just dumb.

You're right, having the ancient swirling the banner like a ribbon dancer as he pirouette across the battlefield would stand out more.

 Nevelon wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

There is a painted copy on their web page, so they did do one eventually. Could they have painted the main pose first, but didn’t get to the second build until after the article went up? No clue how the timeline on painting goes over there.

So how are they 'hiding' the other build if it's shown on the store?

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

There is a painted copy on their web page, so they did do one eventually. Could they have painted the main pose first, but didn’t get to the second build until after the article went up? No clue how the timeline on painting goes over there.

So how are they 'hiding' the other build if it's shown on the store?

I’m not the one who started using the term “hiding”. I think it’s a little harsh for what they are doing, but not completely unjustified. How many times have they shown this guy off? Have they done anything but use the one pic? Have they mentioned even once that the kit has options? Normally GW is quick to crow about options and alternate builds, but nothing but silence here. Which is a bit odd. So not “hiding” but “omitting information”. I think hiding implies a lot of intent, this I think is just them screwing up.

 xttz wrote:
So how are they 'hiding' the other build if it's shown on the store?

"Hiding" might be pushing it, but I think it is fair to say that they aren't promoting this build as heavily as the power sword one - no-one seemed to have a clue about it until the model went up on the store for pre-order yesterday, after all,