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.

I was on the Uk Online store Today trying to bay some Hellhounds BUT there not there anymore. Could someone twll me please whats going on?

Title edited to reflect thread content. In the future, please be more descriptive with your subject lines. Thank you. - Iorek

Please put a question mark in your Subject line as this is a question about Hellhounds rather than a rumor.

No clue. Convert them.

The model can still be found on the US on-line store, so no reason for panic.

Hellhounds are one of the rumored kits to be redone with the new IG codex release. But thats 6-7 months off.

JohnHwangDD wrote:No clue. Convert them.

This. It's easy - take 4 of the barrels from the IG vehicle accessory sprue, glue them 2x2, and cover over the lasgun ports on the Chimera hull. Take the heavy flamer bit, attach to the barrel of the multilaser. Add some bonus armor plating to the turret, if you're so inclined.

here is the link to the US gamesworkshop site. they were top of the list under armies, IG, Fast Attack.

hellhounds on US GW site

might i suggest calling the trollz at the order hotline and asking them if you can still buy it from the UK? I remember when the Praetorians didnt show up anymore on the website I could still order them direct from the trollz at GW thru the ordering line.

~Bart

The FW ones are preferable, in my book.

Kits will quite often be unavailable through one country or another when a new version is on the way, as they'll just sell down whatever's left of the old stock without replenishing.

Sebastokrator wrote:The FW ones are preferable, in my book.

The FW ones are hawt, for sure. But regular Hellhounds are pricy as it is - the FW ones are way too expensive.

Sebastokrator wrote:The FW ones are preferable, in my book.

Aside from the impracticality, yes, the FW tanks are better.

And by impracticality, the front-hinged cab and interference-design fuel tank stand out as sore thumbs. Especially as the turret is raised to cover the tracks - would it have been that hard to ensure that the fuel tank sat below the turret traverse?!?

Maybe they were just sold out at the time?

JohnHwangDD:

If it was practical then it wouldn't be Forgeworld.

The problem is that it's a Chimera chassis - the most realistic of all the 40k vehicles. And it's not like GW couldn't have done it properly... They just chose not to.

Really? I always figured it was the Rhino that was the most realistic, basically being an M113. The Chimera always struck me as a BMP with chromosomal defects.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Sebastokrator wrote:The FW ones are preferable, in my book.

Aside from the impracticality, yes, the FW tanks are better.

Hang on... you're saying that the FW version, with the tank actually replacing the crew compartment (as the fluff indicates it should, I might add), is less practical than GW's version... with the fuel tanks for some unknown reason simply tacked onto the top of the hull...?

Two things:

1. He might mean the practicality of the model itself.
2. It doesn't take too much of a stretch of imagination to see that those tanks go into the tank and somehow wind up in the turret.

BYE

Sorry, but both of those things are going to need a little more explanation...

The practicality issue mentioned was that the tank sits up too high. The tanks on the GW version sit up just as high, so I'm not seeing the difference.

And sure, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how they might work like that... my point was that it's an impractical place to mount them in the first place, and goes against the fluff which mentions that the tanks are inside what is normally the crew compartment, which is why the Hellhound has no transport capacity.

And there's no reason to suggest that there aren't any tanks inside.

The new Vindicator kit has a crane with a shell on its rear. You don't think that's the only other shell it carries, right?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:And there's no reason to suggest that there aren't any tanks inside.

The new Vindicator kit has a crane with a shell on its rear. You don't think that's the only other shell it carries, right?

BYE

I figured it for a "red light-green light" epoxy-like situation, where each tank held a separate component, inert of itself, with mixing occurring in a well-protected inner tank before use.

It's also to deal with the problem that I have: I have a heavy flamer turret chimera. People assume it's a hell hound all the time. with the tanks in the back....

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Aside from the impracticality, yes, the FW tanks are better.

Hang on... you're saying that the FW version, with the tank actually replacing the crew compartment (as the fluff indicates it should, I might add), is less practical than GW's version... with the fuel tanks for some unknown reason simply tacked onto the top of the hull...?

No, I'm saying that FW could have done a lot better. The fuel tank is too large, and too tall, so it prevents proper turret rotation. The crew compartment is too small, necessitating a front hatch that would seriously compromise vehicle integrity against enemy fire.

The fuel tanks on the regular Hellhound aren't a good decision, either.

Nor is having the main gun totally offset on the hull by default.

insaniak wrote:my point was that it's an impractical place to mount them in the first place, and goes against the fluff which mentions that the tanks are inside what is normally the crew compartment, which is why the Hellhound has no transport capacity.

And that is why the FW designs aren't made of win.

Now, if one were to think about the vehicle design and build an all-new Hellhound, then

one could fix these problems pretty easily...

WOW John, I love the look of that Hellhound in your link. A much sleeker, well thought out version that just makes more damn sense. Nice one mate!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, if one were to think about the vehicle design and build an all-new Hellhound, then

one could fix these problems pretty easily...

That's better for the turret, but I'm still not a fan of the external tanks, and having to remodel the back end removes some of the STC-ish goodness.

A smaller fuel tank on a Basilisk/Griffon chassis, or FW's turret on a regular Chimera chassis with the lasgun ports enclosed (perhaps with some sort of venting system for waste gas) would do the job just fine.

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, if one were to think about the vehicle design and build an all-new Hellhound, then

one could fix these problems pretty easily...

That's better for the turret, but I'm still not a fan of the external tanks, and having to remodel the back end removes some of the STC-ish goodness.

A smaller fuel tank on a Basilisk/Griffon chassis, or FW's turret on a regular Chimera chassis with the lasgun ports enclosed (perhaps with some sort of venting system for waste gas) would do the job just fine.

That's actually very close to the Griffon chasis - leave off the upper portion of the hull/crew compartment enclosure, use a flat deck in the rear, and it's just like that (absent the plasticard bonus armor.

Barthonis wrote:WOW John, I love the look of that Hellhound in your link. A much sleeker, well thought out version that just makes more damn sense. Nice one mate!

Thanks!

insaniak wrote:That's better for the turret, but I'm still not a fan of the external tanks, and having to remodel the back end removes some of the STC-ish goodness.

A smaller fuel tank on a Basilisk/Griffon chassis, or FW's turret on a regular Chimera chassis with the lasgun ports enclosed (perhaps with some sort of venting system for waste gas) would do the job just fine.

The external tanks are largely hidden by the tracks on the sides, and only really exposed to rear / top attacks. They are far more protected than on the GW or FW models, and partially exposed specifically to clearly inform the opponent that the tank is a Hellhound.

As far as modeling / STC goes, have you ever seen a Griffon, Basilisk, or Salamander? They all have non-Chimera rears because they aren't primary transport. In fact, they all have a similarly upswept rear plate, which is similar to what I did. In other words, I *increased* the family resemblence to the SPGs. The only major change is extending the crew compartment, which FW also does anyways, because otherwise, there isn't enough space for mounting the turret.

If you want to use a smaller fuel tank on a Bassie or Griffon, how, pray tell, are you going to mount the turret without extending the cab? And if you're using a Chimera hull, how do you make it clear it's not a Chimera with a Turreted Heavy Flamer?

Janthkin wrote:That's actually very close to the Griffon chasis - leave off the upper portion of the hull/crew compartment enclosure, use a flat deck in the rear, and it's just like that (absent the plasticard bonus armor.

Well, to be fair, the Griffon does have a small cab, for the large Mortar, whereas I have a larger cab to mount the turret.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As far as modeling / STC goes, have you ever seen a Griffon, Basilisk, or Salamander? They all have non-Chimera rears because they aren't primary transport.

My point was that, at least in the case of the Griffon and Basilisk (haven't seen a Salamander up close) they have the same rear.

Not saying your conversion is bad... just that I prefer to keep the variant tanks all as similar to the same template as possible.

If you want to use a smaller fuel tank on a Bassie or Griffon, how, pray tell, are you going to mount the turret without extending the cab?

Personally, I wouldn't. I'd go with the Chimera hull.

And if you're using a Chimera hull, how do you make it clear it's not a Chimera with a Turreted Heavy Flamer?

The Inferno cannon does look different to a heavy flamer. They're no more similar than, say, a heavy flamer and a multimelta... so I don't really see any need to differentiate between them any further.

The extra plating on the turret does help, though. A differently shaped turret would do the same.

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As far as modeling / STC goes, have you ever seen a Griffon, Basilisk, or Salamander? They all have non-Chimera rears because they aren't primary transport.

My point was that, at least in the case of the Griffon and Basilisk (haven't seen a Salamander up close) they have the same rear.

Not saying your conversion is bad... just that I prefer to keep the variant tanks all as similar to the same template as possible.

Right, and my point was that the Chimera is the odd man out. The rest are closer in design to my Hellhound. So for a shooty variant like a Hellhound, the Griffon / Basilisk / Salamander is more of the STC reference than the Chimera.

insaniak wrote:

If you want to use a smaller fuel tank on a Bassie or Griffon, how, pray tell, are you going to mount the turret without extending the cab?

Personally, I wouldn't. I'd go with the Chimera hull.

And that is more confusing to the opponent.

insaniak wrote:

And if you're using a Chimera hull, how do you make it clear it's not a Chimera with a Turreted Heavy Flamer?

The Inferno cannon does look different to a heavy flamer. They're no more similar than, say, a heavy flamer and a multimelta... so I don't really see any need to differentiate between them any further.

The extra plating on the turret does help, though. A differently shaped turret would do the same.

*Which* Inferno Cannon? The old 2E GW one, or the current FW one? Or the new SM Redeemer one? Or the SoB one?

And the old 2E Inferno Cannon looks nearly exactly like the old Heavy Flamer, whereas the new FW one looks nearly exactly like a new Flamer. So IMO, you're not making sense here.

JohnHwangDD wrote:*Which* Inferno Cannon? The old 2E GW one, or the current FW one? Or the new SM Redeemer one? Or the SoB one?

I was talking about the current GW model. Which, to me, looks completely different to a heavy flamer. A difference which is backed up by the turret additions which help to distinguish it even further from a flamer-equipped Chimera.

But there's also quite a world of difference between FW's Hellhound turret and Heavy Flamer Chimera turret, both in turret design and weapon shape.

I have no idea which SM or SoB vehicles you're referring to.