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.

JWBS wrote:
So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.

I posted this (modified version of the release pic) in the Adepticon thread as a comparison. He's at least the same height as Guiliman, potentially taller once you take his pose into account.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Personally I can't imagine trying to build a product that pleases every facet of people in this hobby. If often feels like people praising HH do so as if some different company made it.

The problem has never been trying to please everybody. The problem is them trying to continually reinvent the game. Instead of creating a core product and then using successive editions to refine it, they rewrite large chunks of it each time around. That fixes some problems, removes some stuff that wasn't a problem at all, and adds a new raft of problems. We're about to receive the 10th iteration of the game, and they're still completely rewriting large chunks of the game.

While that makes sense from a sales perspective, because new editions continue to push sales for them, as a player it's frustrating to have to continually re-learn how to play the game.

 bullyboy wrote:
Why is there no image on the front of the box?

Personally Im holding out hope that this is a fake/not final release version. Along with no image on the box, the box only lists 4 Miniatures: Lion + 3 BGV. The Lion comes with two Watchers, which (correct me if Im wrong) the Deathwing box list as separate miniatures.

Shouldnt this box list 6 Miniatures?

The Lion's Watchers are probably just base decoration and therefore not counted as miniatures... but one can hope...

So despite a new model and new suit, Farsight has the same stats.

Lame Duck Codex. No reason to re-do his rules this late in the game.

Crusael wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Why is there no image on the front of the box?

Personally Im holding out hope that this is a fake/not final release version. Along with no image on the box, the box only lists 4 Miniatures: Lion + 3 BGV. The Lion comes with two Watchers, which (correct me if Im wrong) the Deathwing box list as separate miniatures.

Shouldnt this box list 6 Miniatures?

The Lion's Watchers are probably just base decoration and therefore not counted as miniatures... but one can hope...

Difference being deathwing watcher is on individual base. Lion integrated to lion's base.

I don't disagree, just wanted to confirm since I just opened the box.

Edit: Neat bit about the model that isn't readily apparent from the official pics is that the arms sockets are floating frames rather than a solid part of the torso.

I see there is a join running through the middle of those vents on his jet pack. I wish GW would stop doing that kind of thing - it also occurs on some of the HH vehicles (e.g. the back of the launcher on the Skorpius). You don't get a clean join because of the 2 sides are moulded, and it's really hard to clean up properly.

To be fair, Farsight’s rules are pretty decent anyway.
I’m more concerned about The Lions rules. They may have a “don’t care” attitude due to end of edition. Vashtorr was a joke, don’t do the Lion dirty.

 insaniak wrote:

JWBS wrote:
So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.

I posted this (modified version of the release pic) in the Adepticon thread as a comparison. He's at least the same height as Guiliman, potentially taller once you take his pose into account.

Yeah well like I said I have my doubts and now I just don't believe it. Aside from posing and mass (Guilliman being chunkier, more stooped, sword aloft, which all have a bearing in making him look larger), he's also smaller according to a rough measurement too, if I'm not mistaken. I like him more than Guilliman and I'll be buying but I'll have to see a direct comparison of both models before I could be convinced they're equal stature.

6th and 7th and 8th and 9th deserved to be flushed down the toilet.

There, I said it.

I just hope they don't do what they did in 8th and start releasing codexes again in a year.

Seriously, how many obsolete copies of codexes do you all have? 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th edition codexes? Maybe skipped one or two generations? What do you do with all these previous edition books? How many campaign books and supplements do you each have that are now coffee table ornaments? Would it be any different if they just released a new codex, other than the fact that you'd have to buy a new book and/or supplement after you trashed the old one?

Some of you are acting like your books didn't become obsolete before, but I know you have a closet shelf somewhere collecting dust with all your old books. Not to mention the BRBs from previous editions.

I went to the store the other day and saw the price sticker on a battlewagon. They wanted $115 USD. For a battlewagon. At least the $50 I'm saving on a new book can offset the cost of these ridiculous annual model price increases.

Not my minis but thought finding him with the same unit might be helpful.

the lion and 3 bladeguard, solid skip on the bladeguard, I will sell those off straight away and use Deathwing Companions instead.

 TedNugent wrote:
6th and 7th and 8th and 9th deserved to be flushed down the toilet.

There, I said it.

I just hope they don't do what they did in 8th and start releasing codexes again in a year.

You think they are going to wait for a year in a 3 year cycle That leaves 1.5 years top to do all the codexes...

They have flat out said new codexes are coming. And 11th comes out in 2026.

Sucks but it is what it is. No point hoping for different. Unless you buy out control over GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Not my minis but thought finding him with the same unit might be helpful.

Looks pretty similar to my eyes. Bladeguard head around waist for both.

Not expecting huge difference and odd mm here or there is natural variation anyway.

 Eldarain wrote:
Not my minis but thought finding him with the same unit might be helpful.

Spoiler:

It's difficult to get a good scale shot, I searched for a while longer than I usually would and couldn't find anything as useful as I'd like. Lots of pics of 30k vs 40k Guilliman.

Seriously, how many obsolete copies of codexes do you all have? 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th edition codexes? Maybe skipped one or two generations? What do you do with all these previous edition books?

Who said they were obsolete? what you do with them is use them.

They are some of the best codexes ever made for the game.

Unless you think some representative from GW is going to come and point a figurative gun to your head an force you to play the current hotness, you can still use them for games of 40K like our group does with our unified 3rd-7th ed rule set or Mezmorki's pro-hammer unified rules.

I own so many of the old codexes (every faction in it's best codex) it is easier to tell you what i do not own a 3rd, 4th, 5th or in the case of armies new to the game in 7th ed codexes that i have with me every single week for gaming in case some players need to use them-

.GSC
.knights+
.deathwatch+
.3.5 chaos+

+=owned by other regular players at my FLGS

JWBS wrote:
So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.

I didn't think he looked much smaller in the comparison pics? Bearing in mind that Guilliman is basically a big robotic suit and Abaddon is a long-term resident of the Eye of Terror, I think Johnson looks fine. He's slimmer, still much taller than a regular marine, and is probably going to be a badass on the table so I really don't see the problem. There was variation between the primarchs in terms of their height and bulk anyway, and Johnson was just very good at fighting, he wasn't a muscular brute like some of his contemporaries.

At least, as far as I'm aware?

 ekwatts wrote:

JWBS wrote:
So Lion looks like a bit of a midget compared to Guilliman and Abaddon and 30k Lion then. Disappointing. It would be fine if the standard wasn't already set, maybe better even, but it is so this kind of sucks imo.

I didn't think he looked much smaller in the comparison pics? Bearing in mind that Guilliman is basically a big robotic suit and Abaddon is a long-term resident of the Eye of Terror, I think Johnson looks fine. He's slimmer, still much taller than a regular marine, and is probably going to be a badass on the table so I really don't see the problem. There was variation between the primarchs in terms of their height and bulk anyway, and Johnson was just very good at fighting, he wasn't a muscular brute like some of his contemporaries.

At least, as far as I'm aware?

Not being ridiculously larger than a Primaris is a plus in my book, he's plenty large enough. Discounting the tactical rock, a bladeguards eye-line is about at his neck/chin, which is fine. According to the HH books, Johnson is 10 foot high, while Primaris sit somewhere between 7 and 8, so he should not totally dwarf them on the tabletop - he looks noticeably bigger, which probably is the right impression, if he were a grotesque giant that was half-again as large as the marines he's riding with that would just seem wrong.

I dunno about canon. In my head canon they're equal, and according to current 30k gamescale Lion is a lot bigger (below) but the caveat is they mostly started smaller and got larger toward the end, not necessarily correlating with fluff. Like I'd say I'd prefer them to be pretty much equal.

Abaddon is a head shorter than Guilliman and he'll be shorter than the Lion too. Lion's looks smaller because of his narrow stance and his front leg being bent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:
I dunno about canon. In my head canon they're equal, and according to current 30k gamescale Lion is a lot bigger (below) but the caveat is they mostly started smaller and got larger toward the end, not necessarily correlating with fluff. Like I'd say I'd prefer them to be pretty much equal.

That's just down to scale creep. In Unremembered Empire (I think) Guilliman greets the Lion and notices he (Lion) is slightly taller than him, so they're basically the same height.

40K Guilliman is very much not in the standing tall straight up position. Personally I think Guilliman looks a lot bigger despite the wide legs stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Launch box speculation

I agree, but it'll be 5 Flamer guys and 3 Terminators. Plus Hormagaunts.

I think everything in that trailer will be in the box, bar maybe the Norn Thingy, which will be a Silent King style release (with the attendant price tag... ).

Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.

Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.

Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:

Spoiler:

Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.

Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.

Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo

Great work on that!

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:

Spoiler:

Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.

Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.

Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo

Great work on that!

+1!

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Here is a Guilliman repose I did a few years back, combined elements of the 30K model as well. I think the biggest reason people don't like 40K Guilliman is his gakky pose, he looks so much better standing normally.

Also his stupid arm cannon, that thing is awful looking.

Also the massive 60mm base, I hate the trend of "its center-piece model, stick it on 60mm base!" 50mm looks much cleaner imo

That looks great. The pose is definitely the weakest part of the 40k Guilliman model, I don’t mind the rest of it (especially once the helmets on).

 TedNugent wrote:
I just hope they don't do what they did in 8th and start releasing codexes again in a year.

a year is way too optimistic here, we should see the first 2 books (core box factions) within 1-2 months after release of 10th

 aphyon wrote:
Who said they were obsolete?

the context was the Magic the Gathering while being around for a long time still uses the same rules, while their card system is similar to the Codex systems but a new Edition does not mean a new game with a different core were everything is replaced

hence the cards that are phased out and replaced are obsolete paper same as a Codex is obsolete paper but of course you can use both at home to play or for certain events without the need to buy something new

Does it actually matter how they do codexes? There are so many that it would take them ~2 years if they released one a month, and we're on a 3-year edition cycle. So either they focus on getting them out, or they delay. It all depends on if they can keep themselves in check for reworking everything with the Codex and adding more nonsense to it. If they can restrain themselves (the ideal situation), then it won't matter so much if they delay a release since you're not getting much on top of the index, which remains the core set and the codex just adds some minor extras.

This is GW, however, so who knows? They have shown for the past 20+ years they can't exercise restraint. And, worse, they show that even if they start with some restraint, they'll change their tune later. So we have two things to watch for:

- Marine and (presumably) Nid codexes being the first, to give a base indication of what the Codex will contain
- Codexes roughly 6 months to a year in, so we can see if they stay the same or if they change direction midway through and start adding more crap to the codexes

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.

I think people should reflect more on the history of GW from 3rd to 7th. It isn't as rosy as nostalgia makes it. That 'experience' was during a time when GW took NO feedback and barely ever attempted to maintain the game through an edition even before the debacle of 7th. The community constantly had to make their own FAQs and point adjustments. Remember comp scores?

There's a lot of new blood on that team based on job openings.

Not true in 3rd- GW released frequent feedback and rules tweaks in White Dwarf, then compiled in the three Chapter Approved annuals. This interaction was maintained in other game systems like BFG too over this period (1998-2004). 3rd edition is my favourite for tone and lore and I don't think this is a coincidence.

For 40k, this seems to have ended when Andy Chambers stepped down as lead rules developer. The 4th ed rulebook was the last thing he worked on, and the tone and interaction started to shift from there.

Wayniac wrote:
Does it actually matter how they do codexes? There are so many that it would take them ~2 years if they released one a month, and we're on a 3-year edition cycle. So either they focus on getting them out, or they delay. It all depends on if they can keep themselves in check for reworking everything with the Codex and adding more nonsense to it. If they can restrain themselves (the ideal situation), then it won't matter so much if they delay a release since you're not getting much on top of the index, which remains the core set and the codex just adds some minor extras.

They don't have to restrain. The codex creep is feature. Not a bug.

Without creep there would be less sales.

 Haighus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Let's get the scenario right, though. I am the manager of the project and I have a team with decades of experience and history working for me. While yes, I'd expect the team to listen to my requests and fix what is broken, I'd also expect them to use their experience, history, and context to not simply turn 90 degrees and do the exact opposite of what they did before. I would expect the magnitude of the mistakes to decrease. I don't think that's the case with GW.

I think people should reflect more on the history of GW from 3rd to 7th. It isn't as rosy as nostalgia makes it. That 'experience' was during a time when GW took NO feedback and barely ever attempted to maintain the game through an edition even before the debacle of 7th. The community constantly had to make their own FAQs and point adjustments. Remember comp scores?

There's a lot of new blood on that team based on job openings.

Not true in 3rd- GW released frequent feedback and rules tweaks in White Dwarf, then compiled in the three Chapter Approved annuals. This interaction was maintained in other game systems like BFG too over this period (1998-2004). 3rd edition is my favourite for tone and lore and I don't think this is a coincidence.

For 40k, this seems to have ended when Andy Chambers stepped down as lead rules developer. The 4th ed rulebook was the last thing he worked on, and the tone and interaction started to shift from there.

That was also at a time that online communities were either in their absolute infancy or non-existent, so stuff like 'hotfix' pdfs or errata was practically impossible because you had to rely on outlets like printed White Dwarfs or Annuals/Compendiums to reach sizeable numbers of players. Today's state is a luxury compared to that simply because you can roll out stuff like that over the App or whatever. It's not so much that they did not want to take feedback, it was more the case that the lead times involved rendered most of it mute by the time it could be rolled out. 2-3 months of lead time in magazine printing meant that from the decision to make a call for feedback till the release of the reaction to it could easily take a year or more, which was about 1/3 of an editions lifetime...