Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
cole1114 wrote:Ooooh that vanguard change from a few changes back is BIG for night lords, statuses turning off scoring was bad for us. Our whole thing is causing statuses, then swooping in with high vanguard units. Raptors alone are vanguard (4) and losing out on that to get the +1WS woulda been sad.
Who cares? No more Night Fighting. 3.0 effectively ended the 8th Legion. Complete and total garbage.
Big disagree, we're very strong right now. Raptors are ridiculous, vanguard (4) with ws6 thunder hammers at I3 on a charge is very strong. Terrors are overpriced as always, but extremely good for setting off statuses. And contekar are a blender now that they combined glaives and blades into a best of both worlds. And the headsman's axe is a better thunder hammer as well. Out of everyone we have the best interaction with statuses, with our rite of war and high-vanguard-special-boys.
We also pair great with knights to cover up our weaknesses. An allied-in freeblade castigator to hit suppressive AND take out 2+ saves as well as a pack of warglaives for tanks, well, the math is easy there.
Blah, blah, blah. This just sounds like straight power gaming. Night Lords not being able to game Night Fighting is lame. I don't care if the Legion is strong besides. You do you.
I mean they do not always fight at night. I'm just really happy with where they are, both from a rules and narrative perspective. Glad the ranged bonus is gone, glad all our special units are actually worth taking. I'm happiest with my NL when they're doing weird coward gak, softening up the enemy for a big blow and retreating to prevent a counter.
No problems. If you enjoy the 3.0 rules for the 8th, enjoy them. I, personally don't. And our specialist units were perfectly useful in both 1.0 and 2.0, btw. But again, you do you.
chaos0xomega wrote:In the grim darkness of the far future, nobody has night vision, thermal vision, etc.
Like seriously, the whole "we need night fighting rules" is ridiculously dumb and also nonsensical from a lore standpoint. Every marine is equipped with a helmet with built-in night vision optics which are usually described in the fluff as enabling them to see as if it were daylight.
Then you go to Mechanicum. You better beleive Automata are able to see in the dark just fine. Everything beyond tech-thralls pretty much would or should have that capability, and the tech-thralls themselves? Well most of them have their eyes replaced or plugged into crap which should enable them to see fine in darkness.
Custodes? Yep, they got optics in their helmets.
Solar Auxilia? Their gear was designed for hazardous environments, void fighting, etc. Yes their helmets have optics. Its safe to assume that infravisors are actually standard issue based on the fluff, even if they were at times treated as individual upgrades for characters.
Sisters of Silence? Almost assuredly have helmet optics.
Really, at this point the question really should be who *doent* have helmet optics.
And tanks, knights, titans? Yeah, all of them have optics. All of them.
I think that the point was that the 8th was specifically good at night fighting due to their having inherent night vision, which was increased by the very technology that you describe, thus making them the masters of the night. So that they were even better than other forces at night fighting. But, I get it. You're just defending 3 0. That's cool. If it makes you happy, play it.
Considering ive been in the anti-3.0 camp in this very thread, thats a hell of a stretch. I dont need to be a 3.0 defender to think that your arguments are nonsensical, illogical, and baseless.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
cole1114 wrote:Ooooh that vanguard change from a few changes back is BIG for night lords, statuses turning off scoring was bad for us. Our whole thing is causing statuses, then swooping in with high vanguard units. Raptors alone are vanguard (4) and losing out on that to get the +1WS woulda been sad.
Who cares? No more Night Fighting. 3.0 effectively ended the 8th Legion. Complete and total garbage.
Big disagree, we're very strong right now. Raptors are ridiculous, vanguard (4) with ws6 thunder hammers at I3 on a charge is very strong. Terrors are overpriced as always, but extremely good for setting off statuses. And contekar are a blender now that they combined glaives and blades into a best of both worlds. And the headsman's axe is a better thunder hammer as well. Out of everyone we have the best interaction with statuses, with our rite of war and high-vanguard-special-boys.
We also pair great with knights to cover up our weaknesses. An allied-in freeblade castigator to hit suppressive AND take out 2+ saves as well as a pack of warglaives for tanks, well, the math is easy there.
Blah, blah, blah. This just sounds like straight power gaming. Night Lords not being able to game Night Fighting is lame. I don't care if the Legion is strong besides. You do you.
I mean they do not always fight at night. I'm just really happy with where they are, both from a rules and narrative perspective. Glad the ranged bonus is gone, glad all our special units are actually worth taking. I'm happiest with my NL when they're doing weird coward gak, softening up the enemy for a big blow and retreating to prevent a counter.
No problems. If you enjoy the 3.0 rules for the 8th, enjoy them. I, personally don't. And our specialist units were perfectly useful in both 1.0 and 2.0, btw. But again, you do you.
chaos0xomega wrote:In the grim darkness of the far future, nobody has night vision, thermal vision, etc.
Like seriously, the whole "we need night fighting rules" is ridiculously dumb and also nonsensical from a lore standpoint. Every marine is equipped with a helmet with built-in night vision optics which are usually described in the fluff as enabling them to see as if it were daylight.
Then you go to Mechanicum. You better beleive Automata are able to see in the dark just fine. Everything beyond tech-thralls pretty much would or should have that capability, and the tech-thralls themselves? Well most of them have their eyes replaced or plugged into crap which should enable them to see fine in darkness.
Custodes? Yep, they got optics in their helmets.
Solar Auxilia? Their gear was designed for hazardous environments, void fighting, etc. Yes their helmets have optics. Its safe to assume that infravisors are actually standard issue based on the fluff, even if they were at times treated as individual upgrades for characters.
Sisters of Silence? Almost assuredly have helmet optics.
Really, at this point the question really should be who *doent* have helmet optics.
And tanks, knights, titans? Yeah, all of them have optics. All of them.
I think that the point was that the 8th was specifically good at night fighting due to their having inherent night vision, which was increased by the very technology that you describe, thus making them the masters of the night. So that they were even better than other forces at night fighting. But, I get it. You're just defending 3 0. That's cool. If it makes you happy, play it.
Considering ive been in the anti-3.0 camp in this very thread, thats a hell of a stretch. I dont need to be a 3.0 defender to think that your arguments are nonsensical, illogical, and baseless.
Okayyyy. Please tell me how my arguments are "nonsensical, illogical, and baseless", when my entire argument is that the loss of Night Fighting kills 3.0 for me, personally, while I wish others well in enjoying the edition themselves.
To be clear: I have no interest in 3.0. If others do? Have fun! Please, enjoy yourselves!
Albertorius wrote: Kinda funny they decide to give THAT much poseability to those, that don't really need it and will be brought in low numbers, instead of, you know... anything else at all, but mainly regular troopers.
I disagree. Posability is more important on larger models.
So instead we have the same five poses on all marks, forever.
This comes up repeatedly. It’s not “the same five poses”, it’s the same body poses. But what does this really mean? I have always customised my models to some extent (I was primarily an Ork player in WH40k), so I understand the desire for posability. I have now built over 60 of the newer Heresy Marines, both Mk 3 and 6, and none of them are the same. Sure, the differences may be relatively minor, but it’s enough - especially bearing in mind that they are fielded in large units which benefit from a degree of uniformity. The Heresy is about massed legions of troops, not small numbers of individual models.
Aesthetics aside, we also gain benefits from the relatively standardised poses. They designed to facilitate cross-compatibility with all the special and heavy weapons. They are more detailed than models which are designed for posability.
In support of what I’m saying, I have also built over 40 of the OOP Mk 3 models, which are more posable and have no repeated poses. Once assembled, they don’t look any more individualistic than the newer models.
I would add that for the majority of players the limited number of body poses is irrelevant - they’re just going to be focused on getting the models on the table, and will prefer less fiddling around. For those who want more individuality - get converting. For instance, the Assault Marine legs are easily matched with Tac Marine bodies to get more dynamic poses.
I think GW took all of this into account when designing the Heresy Marines. And, since it seems to be mandatory to say something negative to prove I’m not a mindless fanboy, I would definitely have preferred more variety in the choice of arms, and bolters without hands moulded onto the underside.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
In support of what I’m saying, I have also built over 40 of the OOP Mk 3 models, which are more posable and have no repeated poses. Once assembled, they don’t look any more individualistic than the newer models.
I'm curious what a "more poseable" Marine entails. How were these bitted out to make them poseable?
cole1114 wrote:Ooooh that vanguard change from a few changes back is BIG for night lords, statuses turning off scoring was bad for us. Our whole thing is causing statuses, then swooping in with high vanguard units. Raptors alone are vanguard (4) and losing out on that to get the +1WS woulda been sad.
Who cares? No more Night Fighting. 3.0 effectively ended the 8th Legion. Complete and total garbage.
Big disagree, we're very strong right now. Raptors are ridiculous, vanguard (4) with ws6 thunder hammers at I3 on a charge is very strong. Terrors are overpriced as always, but extremely good for setting off statuses. And contekar are a blender now that they combined glaives and blades into a best of both worlds. And the headsman's axe is a better thunder hammer as well. Out of everyone we have the best interaction with statuses, with our rite of war and high-vanguard-special-boys.
We also pair great with knights to cover up our weaknesses. An allied-in freeblade castigator to hit suppressive AND take out 2+ saves as well as a pack of warglaives for tanks, well, the math is easy there.
Blah, blah, blah. This just sounds like straight power gaming. Night Lords not being able to game Night Fighting is lame. I don't care if the Legion is strong besides. You do you.
I mean they do not always fight at night. I'm just really happy with where they are, both from a rules and narrative perspective. Glad the ranged bonus is gone, glad all our special units are actually worth taking. I'm happiest with my NL when they're doing weird coward gak, softening up the enemy for a big blow and retreating to prevent a counter.
No problems. If you enjoy the 3.0 rules for the 8th, enjoy them. I, personally don't. And our specialist units were perfectly useful in both 1.0 and 2.0, btw. But again, you do you.
chaos0xomega wrote:In the grim darkness of the far future, nobody has night vision, thermal vision, etc.
Like seriously, the whole "we need night fighting rules" is ridiculously dumb and also nonsensical from a lore standpoint. Every marine is equipped with a helmet with built-in night vision optics which are usually described in the fluff as enabling them to see as if it were daylight.
Then you go to Mechanicum. You better beleive Automata are able to see in the dark just fine. Everything beyond tech-thralls pretty much would or should have that capability, and the tech-thralls themselves? Well most of them have their eyes replaced or plugged into crap which should enable them to see fine in darkness.
Custodes? Yep, they got optics in their helmets.
Solar Auxilia? Their gear was designed for hazardous environments, void fighting, etc. Yes their helmets have optics. Its safe to assume that infravisors are actually standard issue based on the fluff, even if they were at times treated as individual upgrades for characters.
Sisters of Silence? Almost assuredly have helmet optics.
Really, at this point the question really should be who *doent* have helmet optics.
And tanks, knights, titans? Yeah, all of them have optics. All of them.
I think that the point was that the 8th was specifically good at night fighting due to their having inherent night vision, which was increased by the very technology that you describe, thus making them the masters of the night. So that they were even better than other forces at night fighting. But, I get it. You're just defending 3 0. That's cool. If it makes you happy, play it.
Considering ive been in the anti-3.0 camp in this very thread, thats a hell of a stretch. I dont need to be a 3.0 defender to think that your arguments are nonsensical, illogical, and baseless.
Okayyyy. Please tell me how my arguments are "nonsensical, illogical, and baseless", when my entire argument is that the loss of Night Fighting kills 3.0 for me, personally, while I wish others well in enjoying the edition themselves.
To be clear: I have no interest in 3.0. If others do? Have fun! Please, enjoy yourselves!
Because your entire argument is predicated on the idea that night fighting warrants special rules and that your favorite legion in particular needs those rules and needs to excel in that particular field of battle in order for the ruleset to be valid, when the nature of the technology in the setting, in reality, renders the entire concept moot.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
cole1114 wrote:Ooooh that vanguard change from a few changes back is BIG for night lords, statuses turning off scoring was bad for us. Our whole thing is causing statuses, then swooping in with high vanguard units. Raptors alone are vanguard (4) and losing out on that to get the +1WS woulda been sad.
Who cares? No more Night Fighting. 3.0 effectively ended the 8th Legion. Complete and total garbage.
Big disagree, we're very strong right now. Raptors are ridiculous, vanguard (4) with ws6 thunder hammers at I3 on a charge is very strong. Terrors are overpriced as always, but extremely good for setting off statuses. And contekar are a blender now that they combined glaives and blades into a best of both worlds. And the headsman's axe is a better thunder hammer as well. Out of everyone we have the best interaction with statuses, with our rite of war and high-vanguard-special-boys.
We also pair great with knights to cover up our weaknesses. An allied-in freeblade castigator to hit suppressive AND take out 2+ saves as well as a pack of warglaives for tanks, well, the math is easy there.
Blah, blah, blah. This just sounds like straight power gaming. Night Lords not being able to game Night Fighting is lame. I don't care if the Legion is strong besides. You do you.
I mean they do not always fight at night. I'm just really happy with where they are, both from a rules and narrative perspective. Glad the ranged bonus is gone, glad all our special units are actually worth taking. I'm happiest with my NL when they're doing weird coward gak, softening up the enemy for a big blow and retreating to prevent a counter.
No problems. If you enjoy the 3.0 rules for the 8th, enjoy them. I, personally don't. And our specialist units were perfectly useful in both 1.0 and 2.0, btw. But again, you do you.
chaos0xomega wrote:In the grim darkness of the far future, nobody has night vision, thermal vision, etc.
Like seriously, the whole "we need night fighting rules" is ridiculously dumb and also nonsensical from a lore standpoint. Every marine is equipped with a helmet with built-in night vision optics which are usually described in the fluff as enabling them to see as if it were daylight.
Then you go to Mechanicum. You better beleive Automata are able to see in the dark just fine. Everything beyond tech-thralls pretty much would or should have that capability, and the tech-thralls themselves? Well most of them have their eyes replaced or plugged into crap which should enable them to see fine in darkness.
Custodes? Yep, they got optics in their helmets.
Solar Auxilia? Their gear was designed for hazardous environments, void fighting, etc. Yes their helmets have optics. Its safe to assume that infravisors are actually standard issue based on the fluff, even if they were at times treated as individual upgrades for characters.
Sisters of Silence? Almost assuredly have helmet optics.
Really, at this point the question really should be who *doent* have helmet optics.
And tanks, knights, titans? Yeah, all of them have optics. All of them.
I think that the point was that the 8th was specifically good at night fighting due to their having inherent night vision, which was increased by the very technology that you describe, thus making them the masters of the night. So that they were even better than other forces at night fighting. But, I get it. You're just defending 3 0. That's cool. If it makes you happy, play it.
Considering ive been in the anti-3.0 camp in this very thread, thats a hell of a stretch. I dont need to be a 3.0 defender to think that your arguments are nonsensical, illogical, and baseless.
Okayyyy. Please tell me how my arguments are "nonsensical, illogical, and baseless", when my entire argument is that the loss of Night Fighting kills 3.0 for me, personally, while I wish others well in enjoying the edition themselves.
To be clear: I have no interest in 3.0. If others do? Have fun! Please, enjoy yourselves!
Because your entire argument is predicated on the idea that night fighting warrants special rules and that your favorite legion in particular needs those rules and needs to excel in that particular field of battle in order for the ruleset to be valid, when the nature of the technology in the setting, in reality, renders the entire concept moot.
So, you're bored on a Saturday night and looking for a fight. Fine. Look for someone else. I'm not doing it. I'm fine with sticking with 2.0, as I've said. You do whatever makes you happy.
Snord wrote: Aesthetics aside, we also gain benefits from the relatively standardised poses. They designed to facilitate cross-compatibility with all the special and heavy weapons. They are more detailed than models which are designed for posability.
Again... that's the arms, not the poses. The five "standarized" poses do nothing at all in that regard.
That's not even taking into account the fact that they have gone the cheapest possible route for all the marks, with a single small sprue per mark, as a BB Team or Necromunda gang.
In support of what I’m saying, I have also built over 40 of the OOP Mk 3 models, which are more posable and have no repeated poses. Once assembled, they don’t look any more individualistic than the newer models.
That's cool, I have too. And I would have much rather that they have had used three sprues (as they did for the old mark IIIs) to have 15 different poses instead of 5 nonetheless, even if nothing else would have changed. and then that those 15 would be more personalized for each mark, because, again, the cross compatibility is with the arms, not the poses.
But of course, that would have been more expensive for GW.
EDIT: Additionally... have parts gone down at all? Old "poseable" marines had 10 parts (legs, torso front, torso back, head, backpack, lef arm, right arm, 2 shoulder pads and gun), and the Mk VI at least had one more (due to split studded shoulder pads), haven't really seen the others.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2025/07/27 07:23:44
Snord wrote: Aesthetics aside, we also gain benefits from the relatively standardised poses. They designed to facilitate cross-compatibility with all the special and heavy weapons.
True!
It was so annoying that in some fantastical alternate universe nobody could previously mix the heavy weapons from a Devastator Squad box with bodies from a Tactical Squad box. So glad that GW saved us from that.
Snord wrote: Aesthetics aside, we also gain benefits from the relatively standardised poses. They designed to facilitate cross-compatibility with all the special and heavy weapons.
True!
It was so annoying that in some fantastical alternate universe nobody could previously mix the heavy weapons from a Devastator Squad box with bodies from a Tactical Squad box. So glad that GW saved us from that.
My MKVI marines look alot more dynamic than my old MKIII.
Marines dont really need more than 5 basic leg/body poses. I feel like HHin art is usually depicted as marines beeing way more uniform and less individuality.
I guess they could do another sprue with more spectacular models, like a marine holding the bolter in one arm and pointing, but when they do that with Primaris marines, having one or two in every unit pointing looks real silly.
The other way would be for GW to experiment more with tactical rocks for base marines to have more varied poses, but I dont think too many HH players would like that.
The thing is, armour in 40k lore-wise are relics passed down from Astartes to Astartes, much like gene-seed.
The Tactical kits from the multi-part era (as in lots of options not just main body chunk + gun + pack) had Mk7 with three or four different chest Aquilas, helmets with longer face grilles and shorter Sarum-esque types, a load of powerpacks with different detailing. They also came with Mk6 and Mk8 parts as well.
Throw in the interchangeable parts from all the other options and each Marine was a character in their own right.
But again, that's the point. Brother Timirus of the Knights of Dorn is fighting Tyranids wearing armour that purged Olympia during the Scouring. His is a lineage of heroes and legends.
Brother Gonal of the Imperial Fists is wearing armour that was made a week earlier after, much like Gonal himself who got rapidly inducted to serve in the defence of Terra. He is a mass produced soldier for a galaxy wide civil war of attrition.
EDIT: Additionally... have parts gone down at all? Old "poseable" marines had 10 parts (legs, torso front, torso back, head, backpack, lef arm, right arm, 2 shoulder pads and gun), and the Mk VI at least had one more (due to split studded shoulder pads), haven't really seen the others.
idk if parts number is down and don't care to check but I'll say that those "poseable" marines were crap for posing aside from the old torso twist
Goodies have now arrived, and I’ve gone for the Mechanicum book first.
We’ve got some nasty to Very Nasty When Stationary range weapons, such as the Phase Fusil and Sollex Heavy Lascannon.
Basic Thallaxi aren’t quite as shooty as they used to be, as their Lightning Gun no longer has two firing options. But they did gain Suppresive (0).
But. As has been noted before, any model can now upgrade its Lightning Gun. The Photon Thruster looks to be fairly vicious, due to decent stats and Suppresive (2) - and the loss of Gets Hot!
Phased Plasma Fusils are a nice AP3 basic, with Breaching (5+). Also, no Gets Hot! which is welcome.
Castellax threw me for a second, as they’ve two entries. There’s a regular Maniple which can’t upgrade its Mauler Bolt Cannon. But there’s also the Castellax Destructor Maniple, where everyone can upgrade to a Multi-Melta or Darkfire Cannon.
What does this mean for my existing Taghmata?
Well. It means it turns out I’ve two Castellax Destructor Maniples, and one Castellax Maniple.
Ursarax now have unit specific weapons. Claws give you 5 attacks total at AP3, and Breaching (6+). Fists are lighter Power Fists, granting S +2, but are AP and D2. And all Ursarax can upgrade/sidegrade to Fists.
Definitely need to start rationalising my collection into something vaguely resembling an army.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
EDIT: Additionally... have parts gone down at all? Old "poseable" marines had 10 parts (legs, torso front, torso back, head, backpack, lef arm, right arm, 2 shoulder pads and gun), and the Mk VI at least had one more (due to split studded shoulder pads), haven't really seen the others.
idk if parts number is down and don't care to check but I'll say that those "poseable" marines were crap for posing aside from the old torso twist
Ok... why would you quote my specific question to then answer to something I did not ask? I wasn't asking about the "poseability" of the old marks, only to the parts number, because someone upthread was saying that they felt they were easier to assemble... and I wonder why would they think that. It's not parts number, and I would think it's not because the parts are easier to parse (as the bodies absolutely need to be exactly the parts numbered from the sprue, whereas for the old marines, legs are legs and they are easily identifiable, as are fron torsos and everything else, "poseability" notwithstanding).
So, anyone that has built Mk II or new Mk III marines, would be willing to answer?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fayric wrote: My MKVI marines look alot more dynamic than my old MKIII. Marines dont really need more than 5 basic leg/body poses. I feel like HHin art is usually depicted as marines beeing way more uniform and less individuality.
I guess they could do another sprue with more spectacular models, like a marine holding the bolter in one arm and pointing, but when they do that with Primaris marines, having one or two in every unit pointing looks real silly.
The other way would be for GW to experiment more with tactical rocks for base marines to have more varied poses, but I dont think too many HH players would like that.
And that's great! But don't you think GW could, if so they wanted, to have used the same resources they did for the old marks (three regular sprues) and given us two or three times as many dynamic yet subdued poses? Mid run, kneeling, fully braced, etc., to give some examples?
And THEN, couldn't they have done the poses on the other marks at least a tad different, instead of just slapping the new mark on the very same bones?
To me, it simply says that GW are being cheap (less resources, less sprues, less worktime), and all of those changes benefit no one but GW, right in their bottom line. Not the users, not the players, because if so, they could at least be cheaper, seeing as they're much cheaper to make.
EDIT: And to clarify, I absolutely agree with this: very "dynamic" poses that get repeated over and over and over is horrible.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2025/07/27 16:09:35
To me, it simply says that GW are being cheap (less resources, less sprues, less worktime), and all of those changes benefit no one but GW, right in their bottom line. Not the users, not the players, because if so, they could at least be cheaper, seeing as they're much cheaper to make.
I agree that more poses would have been nice, but I don't think your last comment is fair as they ARE quite a lot cheaper than comparable other kits from GW. 10 HH marines cost 33.75 Euro, while 10 40K Marines are between 47.50 and 55 Euro, depending on kit.
To me, it simply says that GW are being cheap (less resources, less sprues, less worktime), and all of those changes benefit no one but GW, right in their bottom line. Not the users, not the players, because if so, they could at least be cheaper, seeing as they're much cheaper to make.
I agree that more poses would have been nice, but I don't think your last comment is fair as they ARE quite a lot cheaper than comparable other kits from GW. 10 HH marines cost 33.75 Euro, while 10 40K Marines are between 47.50 and 55 Euro, depending on kit.
I mean, I think those are more of a ripoff. Not that these aren't, or are less. But yes, GW is being cheaper buy asking for more in all the ranges.
Of all the things and designs to complain about, I dont think the HH basic marines are on the list for me.
Sure they could ad more options and stuff, but I simply dont see the need for it, and would honestly prefer if they kept it simple and didnt try to overdesign them.
And you know GW always say "if it aint broken, dont try to fix it".
Fayric wrote: Of all the things and designs to complain about, I dont think the HH basic marines are on the list for me.
Sure they could ad more options and stuff, but I simply dont see the need for it, and would honestly prefer if they kept it simple and didnt try to overdesign them.
And you know GW always say "if it aint broken, dont try to fix it".
Well, this is my pet peeve, eveyone has one, go find yours!
Shrapnelsmile wrote: arrived at our store today, a store that is on top of their game, to find out that GW delivered everything to the owner except the main HH rule books. No explanation. I wonder if they are doing this to try to shift a few more box sets. So frustrating.
No, the warehouse is just that terrible at their jobs. And it isn't just Trade accounts, the local shop dude also has stuff just not show up in orders as well. Did he get the completely unsolicited Objective coin sets? No idea what those are for, guess they will get used for event support.
Sales reps have no idea what is in or out of stock, so an order will arrive with 20-40%+ missing because those codes were out of stock, but at least there is an extra 10 boxes of Mandrakes that were not ordered at all.
And it isn't like you can ask for an invoice since they think that order hasn't shipped despite receiving it the previous week. Which means it isn't visible in their system somehow. Yet the warehouse was able to pick and ship some random collection of product and send it to an address.
If it wasn't for the fact that the product lines are massively popular, I am shocked that they haven't collapsed under their own befuddlement.
EDIT: Additionally... have parts gone down at all? Old "poseable" marines had 10 parts (legs, torso front, torso back, head, backpack, lef arm, right arm, 2 shoulder pads and gun), and the Mk VI at least had one more (due to split studded shoulder pads), haven't really seen the others.
idk if parts number is down and don't care to check but I'll say that those "poseable" marines were crap for posing aside from the old torso twist
Ok... why would you quote my specific question to then answer to something I did not ask? I wasn't asking about the "poseability" of the old marks, only to the parts number, because someone upthread was saying that they felt they were easier to assemble... and I wonder why would they think that. It's not parts number, and I would think it's not because the parts are easier to parse (as the bodies absolutely need to be exactly the parts numbered from the sprue, whereas for the old marines, legs are legs and they are easily identifiable, as are fron torsos and everything else, "poseability" notwithstanding).
So, anyone that has built Mk II or new Mk III marines, would be willing to answer?
You said poseable in scare quotes and I said they indeed weren't very poseable, it ain't that deep etc.
No, harder. The old ones you just had to match the arms, the new ones need the whole set matched except the arms + head, though the arms still need to be matched together. I didn't make any Prospero marines, just lots of classic 40k marines & current 40k / Heresy marines.
JWBS wrote: No, harder. The old ones you just had to match the arms, the new ones need the whole set matched except the arms + head, though the arms still need to be matched together. I didn't make any Prospero marines, just lots of classic 40k marines & current 40k / Heresy marines.
Thanks for the answer Those were my own impressions with the Mk VIs, and I was wondering.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/07/27 16:59:04
It's super duper important though - this one is in a HH branded box! The branding seal of quality is how you know it's matched play legal and not a legends unit.
Those were my own impressions with the Mk VIs, and I was wondering.