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.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:


You literally just made up some numbers to try to bolster your point.

That is what the "for example" is there in the sentence to indicate. If you have pre-2020 numbers from the background to use instead, I'd love to see them!

See? This is why I hate wargames. It appeals to the fanboy fantasy of people and corporations conspiring to destroy their toys just because they chose to make into plastic one style of power armour instead of other style of power armour.

Why does the World Eater in that pic have red shoulder pads? Pre-Heresy WE colours were white and blue.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why does the World Eater in that pic have red shoulder pads? Pre-Heresy WE colours were white and blue.

Because it is this specific guy

 Galas wrote:
See? This is why I hate wargames. It appeals to the fanboy fantasy of people and corporations conspiring to destroy their toys just because they chose to make into plastic one style of power armour instead of other style of power armour.

Here. Have a virtual snickers. You get unreasonably hyperbolic when you're hungry for new models.



If you hate wargaming then this is an odd forum to repeatedly visit. I'm not gatekeeping but rather concerned for your mental wellbeing.

In all seriousness, the issue is more with the background change than the models. The only issue I've seen with the actual models brought up is the change in scale/proportions. I like it though.

This thread is off the rails and should probably be nuked.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/804263.page#11333620

I've made a thread for the lore discussion to avoid clogging up/locking the N&R thread.

On-topic, I like the bayonets on the MkVI models, look nicely vicious.

 Haighus wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/804263.page#11333620

I've made a thread for the lore discussion to avoid clogging up/locking the N&R thread.

On-topic, I like the boynets on the MkVI models, look nicely vicious.

You’re a saint!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

JSG wrote:
TBH I think Mk.VI was chosen for the box because it's the least useful to most HH players.

You really think GW sat down and thought "Now what would players of this game like the least? What would be the most useless type of model to give them?".

You actually, truly, in your heart-of-hearts, think that this was an intentional decision they made?

I'm not agreeing with his point, but I don't think it's a secret that Mark 6 is probably the more niche mark among the playerbase other than Mark 5. Not disliked, but not the first armour people who aren't playing RG (and maybe AL) reach for. By initially relaunching the game with plastic upscaled Mark 6 they can get all those sales for the new hotness now and when Mark 2 inevitably releases in the future, the people who would've preferred that all run and buy their stuff again, meanwhile if they'd done it the other way around there'd probably be less buying into it. I expect most Mark 3 and 4 owners will buy Mark 6 anyway just to bring everything up to scale.

 Galas wrote:
Because it is this specific guy

Ah. Ok. Thanks for that.

Hopefully not a sign of things to come. I like Pre-Heresy World Eaters with the blue, and changing that would be an actual retcon (as opposed to there being Mk.VI armour).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because it is this specific guy

Ah. Ok. Thanks for that.

Hopefully not a sign of things to come. I like Pre-Heresy World Eaters with the blue, and changing that would be an actual retcon (as opposed to there being Mk.VI armour).

I assumed it was a case of them having the white and blue armour at the beginning of the Heresy and slowly transitioning to red during.

Someone did some work to catalogue the MkVI references so maybe we can put it to bed now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because it is this specific guy

Ah. Ok. Thanks for that.

Hopefully not a sign of things to come. I like Pre-Heresy World Eaters with the blue, and changing that would be an actual retcon (as opposed to there being Mk.VI armour).

One of the great things about the FW books is they introduced a number of variant schemes for Legionaries and the contexts which spawned them. This really opened up the Legion paint options and gave a lot more creative license to come up with your own variant scheme in an otherwise more limited "historical" setting. There are even variant schemes for the Custodes. Some of these variants nicely set up the direction of future warbands and Second Founding chapters.

The transitional World Eater scheme above is one of these.

Eh, I like all armor marks. Yes, even that one.

I also like beakies for what they were in HH and for the old RT vibes, so I'm happy with this.

Would I have preferred to see a good Mark V set? Well, yeah, I absolutely love mark V, and to me is pretty much THE look of the Heresy, but I am probably a minority.

I also don't mind having Mk III and IV slightly smaller. I'm sure that once they are on the table it won't really be all that noticeable, and there's no way in hell I'm gonna throw away the army I have already painted, so...

 Arbitrator wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

JSG wrote:
TBH I think Mk.VI was chosen for the box because it's the least useful to most HH players.

You really think GW sat down and thought "Now what would players of this game like the least? What would be the most useless type of model to give them?".

You actually, truly, in your heart-of-hearts, think that this was an intentional decision they made?

I'm not agreeing with his point, but I don't think it's a secret that Mark 6 is probably the more niche mark among the playerbase other than Mark 5. Not disliked, but not the first armour people who aren't playing RG (and maybe AL) reach for. By initially relaunching the game with plastic upscaled Mark 6 they can get all those sales for the new hotness now and when Mark 2 inevitably releases in the future, the people who would've preferred that all run and buy their stuff again, meanwhile if they'd done it the other way around there'd probably be less buying into it. I expect most Mark 3 and 4 owners will buy Mark 6 anyway just to bring everything up to scale.

Do we know that this is a "mk Vi relaunch"? Yes, there were quite a few in the animation, and the official line trooper pic of one guy is a beaky, but I'm pretty sure there were numerous non-helmed, non-beakies in the animation weren't there? And potentially many beakless actual models in the box? Maybe this "mk vi" as a base for a release is just an erroneous assumption. I get that there seems to be more of them than usual, and since they're among the most distinctive types it becomes obvious when they're numerous or not, but maybe they're not as endemic as people are assuming. I'm going to check the vid and the pics.

hmm seems animation is 100% beakies and from this I'd imagine the launch box is too.

did not realise people were this hung up on the armour mark lol, its absolutely silly and you are all wrong, clearly MKII is the better option for a box set.

Why yes I do play Dark Angels how did you know?

VI is the original and best. This is going to be the best box of marines since RTB01.

I'm just hoping the actual models are not all monopose. I'd prefer some more variation than "choose your arms and head for this specific pose".

The clear solution is they add a rule

roll a dice at start of game, on a 1-3 your game takes place on istvan if so, armies can only have exactly 20% mark 3 models, 30% mark 2 and 50% mark 4.on a 4-6 its siege of terra, armies struggled to put together resources so all models must be modelled with mixed sets, no fully kitted out units in matching uniform, its unrealistic that marines would even have full same mark set let along full unit of them.

Failure to keep to these exact historical numbers results in auto loss. make sure you bring enough alternately modelled marines to match the exact date of your games.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I believe I hate everything so far. This release is a catastrophic failure for me, from the obvious retcons to the people accepting them like they had always been there, the unnecessary change of edition, the models and kits that aren't gonna be in the new edition, the end of the black books... If this proves a single thing, it's that there is never enough gatekeeping

Gatekeeping is poison. What a stupid post.

Gatekeeping is necessary to keep any sort of quality of the fanbase.

Without gatekeeping you get people going onto to the Warhammer 40k subreddit asking what a "bolter" is, and if they do anything on the tabletop, while posting a blurry picture of Primaris instructions, or posting pictures of the bloody Chaos Star and going "guys what's this thing????", instead of y'know, googling it like normal people.

It just nosedives the quality of any discourse when it's filled with people that have no clue about what they're doing.

Or people who do nothing but whine incessantly.

My guess - and it just that a guess - is they probably went with the MK VI because of it's association to the original Rogue Trader, and that it would also be more recognizable as a "retro" Space Marine armor to figured folks playing "modern" 40K who are not familiar with the Horus Heresy. The later mark of armor also gives it more cross-sell potential to current 40K players who might be so inclined to make more First Born.

I think we will see MK II and V in plastic as well. What makes me sad is we probably will not see the Mk III and IV in these new, better proportioned sizes since their plastic kits are relatively new (what are they, 7-8 years now? At least less than 10 years old).

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Because it is this specific guy

Ah. Ok. Thanks for that.

Hopefully not a sign of things to come. I like Pre-Heresy World Eaters with the blue, and changing that would be an actual retcon (as opposed to there being Mk.VI armour).

I assumed it was a case of them having the white and blue armour at the beginning of the Heresy and slowly transitioning to red during.

Exactly - by the Siege, they're wearing red.

 Mothman wrote:
The clear solution is they add a rule

roll a dice at start of game, on a 1-3 your game takes place on istvan if so, armies can only have exactly 20% mark 3 models, 30% mark 2 and 50% mark 4.on a 4-6 its siege of terra, armies struggled to put together resources so all models must be modelled with mixed sets, no fully kitted out units in matching uniform, its unrealistic that marines would even have full same mark set let along full unit of them.

Failure to keep to these exact historical numbers results in auto loss. make sure you bring enough alternately modelled marines to match the exact date of your games.

This one of my favourite posts on the whole Internet.

 smurfORnot wrote:

JWBS wrote:
The general consensus is that resin is more expensive in material, in labour, and in economies of scale.

China disagrees with ya xD

Even in China, resin production is more expensive than injection moulded plastic. The fact that recasters can produce stuff cheaper than the original creator doesn't actually change the manpower involved, or the cost of materials involved.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Gatekeeping is necessary to keep any sort of quality of the fanbase.

Without gatekeeping you get people going onto to the Warhammer 40k subreddit asking what a "bolter" is, and if they do anything on the tabletop, while posting a blurry picture of Primaris instructions, or posting pictures of the bloody Chaos Star and going "guys what's this thing????", instead of y'know, googling it like normal people.

It just nosedives the quality of any discourse when it's filled with people that have no clue about what they're doing.

Relying on Google for background knowledge is how you wind up with people thinking Mk6 armour in the Heresy is anachronistic.


I can't even begin to imagine what someone must have been through to think that talking to interested newcomers about the hobby is some sort of problem.

 Crimson wrote:
What is weird that even though Mk VI was super common during the latter phases of the Heresy, we basically never see CSM in armour derived from it. Where are all the CSM beakies?

Funnily enough, we've been asking that question since 2nd edition.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Hell, I still have the 2E Chaos Codex where it states Fulgrim and the Emperors Children were with the loyalist legions who went to Istvaan, and Fulgrim decided to change sides during the parley with Horus there. .

There's also the passage in the Ultramarines codex where it mentions that the 2nd and 11th Legions fought during the Heresy, probably on Horus' side.

 Arbitrator wrote:

I'm not agreeing with his point, but I don't think it's a secret that Mark 6 is probably the more niche mark among the playerbase other than Mark 5. Not disliked, but not the first armour people who aren't playing RG (and maybe AL) reach for. By initially relaunching the game with plastic upscaled Mark 6 they can get all those sales for the new hotness now and when Mark 2 inevitably releases in the future, the people who would've preferred that all run and buy their stuff again, meanwhile if they'd done it the other way around there'd probably be less buying into it. I expect most Mark 3 and 4 owners will buy Mark 6 anyway just to bring everything up to scale.

I think you've completely misjudged the playerbase there, to be honest. Mk6 hits the nostalgia buttons for the vets, and looks completely different to Primaris armour for everyone else. While there are certainly those who don't like it, from my experience the playerbase has always had a very large soft spot for beakies.

At a time when GW is leaning hard on the nostalgia buttons with practically every new release now being based on ancient Jes Goodwin concept art, tying the HH re-release back to the original Space Marine release is unsurprising and will for the most part be received well, IMO.

 Soundtheory wrote:

I think we will see MK II and V in plastic as well. What makes me sad is we probably will not see the Mk III and IV in these new, better proportioned sizes since their plastic kits are relatively new (what are they, 7-8 years now? At least less than 10 years old).

The last SM Devastators were less than 10 Yerars old, like some other Sets which got replaced.

I wonder if they bring two starter Paint Sets, but only different in Paints (Sons of Horus and Imperial Fists Sets) with 2-3 Marines on a Sprue..

Do you think we will see a intro starter Magazine with Miniature(s) like for the both other Systems?

We also have anniversary this Year; 35 Years of Warhammer 40.000[ and 35 Years of RT001

 Mothman wrote:
The clear solution is they add a rule

roll a dice at start of game, on a 1-3 your game takes place on istvan if so, armies can only have exactly 20% mark 3 models, 30% mark 2 and 50% mark 4.on a 4-6 its siege of terra, armies struggled to put together resources so all models must be modelled with mixed sets, no fully kitted out units in matching uniform, its unrealistic that marines would even have full same mark set let along full unit of them.

Failure to keep to these exact historical numbers results in auto loss. make sure you bring enough alternately modelled marines to match the exact date of your games.

Stop bringing perspective to this with humour (sad I can only exalt that once)



I honest just want to see them with a different helmet, literally any other helmet. I can't stop associating beakies with either assault marines or raven guard in general.

 Crimson wrote:
What is weird that even though Mk VI was super common during the latter phases of the Heresy, we basically never see CSM in armour derived from it. Where are all the CSM beakies?

Clearly this proves MK VI to be the worst Astartes armor ever produced or it and their wearers would still be around. Even MK IV, well known for requiring hard-to-find materials, and MK II/III, known for being difficult to maintain, have more presence in the resource-strapped chaos armory. Even the fact that MK VI is still in production with parts readily available (after a quick raid) doesn't seem to have bolstered its popularity among traitor forces.

Either that or it's the best armor and thus was given solely to the front line troops who all died and only the cowardly reserves with their obsolete junk armor managed to escape Terra alive.

No One Important wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
What is weird that even though Mk VI was super common during the latter phases of the Heresy, we basically never see CSM in armour derived from it. Where are all the CSM beakies?

Clearly this proves MK VI to be the worst Astartes armor ever produced or it and their wearers would still be around. Even MK IV, well known for requiring hard-to-find materials, and MK II/III, known for being difficult to maintain, have more presence in the resource-strapped chaos armory. Even the fact that MK VI is still in production with parts readily available (after a quick raid) doesn't seem to have bolstered its popularity among traitor forces.

Either that or it's the best armor and thus was given solely to the front line troops who all died and only the cowardly reserves with their obsolete junk armor managed to escape Terra alive.

That, or the designers find it easier to make menacing-looking helmets with grilles instead of beaks.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

No One Important wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
What is weird that even though Mk VI was super common during the latter phases of the Heresy, we basically never see CSM in armour derived from it. Where are all the CSM beakies?

Clearly this proves MK VI to be the worst Astartes armor ever produced or it and their wearers would still be around. Even MK IV, well known for requiring hard-to-find materials, and MK II/III, known for being difficult to maintain, have more presence in the resource-strapped chaos armory. Even the fact that MK VI is still in production with parts readily available (after a quick raid) doesn't seem to have bolstered its popularity among traitor forces.

Either that or it's the best armor and thus was given solely to the front line troops who all died and only the cowardly reserves with their obsolete junk armor managed to escape Terra alive.

That, or the designers find it easier to make menacing-looking helmets with grilles instead of beaks.

ya know what we need? a CSM with a beakie helmet that's turned into a fang filled snout!

JWBS wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

JSG wrote:
TBH I think Mk.VI was chosen for the box because it's the least useful to most HH players.

You really think GW sat down and thought "Now what would players of this game like the least? What would be the most useless type of model to give them?".

You actually, truly, in your heart-of-hearts, think that this was an intentional decision they made?

I'm not agreeing with his point, but I don't think it's a secret that Mark 6 is probably the more niche mark among the playerbase other than Mark 5. Not disliked, but not the first armour people who aren't playing RG (and maybe AL) reach for. By initially relaunching the game with plastic upscaled Mark 6 they can get all those sales for the new hotness now and when Mark 2 inevitably releases in the future, the people who would've preferred that all run and buy their stuff again, meanwhile if they'd done it the other way around there'd probably be less buying into it. I expect most Mark 3 and 4 owners will buy Mark 6 anyway just to bring everything up to scale.

Do we know that this is a "mk Vi relaunch"? Yes, there were quite a few in the animation, and the official line trooper pic of one guy is a beaky, but I'm pretty sure there were numerous non-helmed, non-beakies in the animation weren't there? And potentially many beakless actual models in the box? Maybe this "mk vi" as a base for a release is just an erroneous assumption. I get that there seems to be more of them than usual, and since they're among the most distinctive types it becomes obvious when they're numerous or not, but maybe they're not as endemic as people are assuming. I'm going to check the vid and the pics.

hmm seems animation is 100% beakies and from this I'd imagine the launch box is too.

Yeah, the launch box is all beakies. We've had leaked pics of the contents for a while now. The trailer was just the box contents save for the new battle tank.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

No One Important wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
What is weird that even though Mk VI was super common during the latter phases of the Heresy, we basically never see CSM in armour derived from it. Where are all the CSM beakies?

Clearly this proves MK VI to be the worst Astartes armor ever produced or it and their wearers would still be around. Even MK IV, well known for requiring hard-to-find materials, and MK II/III, known for being difficult to maintain, have more presence in the resource-strapped chaos armory. Even the fact that MK VI is still in production with parts readily available (after a quick raid) doesn't seem to have bolstered its popularity among traitor forces.

Either that or it's the best armor and thus was given solely to the front line troops who all died and only the cowardly reserves with their obsolete junk armor managed to escape Terra alive.

That, or the designers find it easier to make menacing-looking helmets with grilles instead of beaks.

ya know what we need? a CSM with a beakie helmet that's turned into a fang filled snout!

Indeed. Twisted fanged beaky mouths (or beaky helmets that are actual beaks).