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.

what ever brainless imp that they have over at GW making the models that they use for picks can't seem to make anything correctly...gaps everywhere
anyone ever notice that the Valk on the back of the box has its Tail put on backwards or the one on the front that its back canopy isn't even put down all the way... are they using young bloods now or something?

that hull looks like crap, can they just release a turret kit so we can just update our current Russes? i have 8 Leman Russ tanks i don't think i need more...

whats with the idiotic super thick rear turret stowage lids? is that lid made to withstand a direct hit with a lascannon or something?

jep'ray wrote:whats with the idiotic super thick rear turret stowage lids? is that lid made to withstand a direct hit with a lascannon or something?

AV11 Rear...

but stowage???is the crews personal gear that important? lol

jep'ray wrote:what ever brainless imp that they have over at GW making the models that they use for picks can't seem to make anything correctly...gaps everywhere
anyone ever notice that the Valk on the back of the box has its Tail put on backwards or the one on the front that its back canopy isn't even put down all the way... are they using young bloods now or something?

that hull looks like crap, can they just release a turret kit so we can just update our current Russes? i have 8 Leman Russ tanks i don't think i need more...

To anyone who works in a manufacturing setting its very clear that this is the result of them trying to get the models released as quickly as possible. The models in the pictures are probably all from prototype runs of the model sprues. Done with an imperfect mold. The result is a model as warped as a forgeworld model but without the ability to correct those issues after the fact. They probably have someone unfamiliar with the model assembling and painting it as quickly as possible so they can take a couple of pictures and order the boxes. Those boxes probably have to be ordered a month or two before they even start running production on the models. So if you have to choose between a crappy picture and waiting an extra couple of months, which would you take?

jep'ray wrote:
whats with the idiotic super thick rear turret stowage lids? is that lid made to withstand a direct hit with a lascannon or something?

Chances are yes. If you had different important equipment stored in there would you want it blown off by small arms fire. On a number of russian tanks its where they stored the radio and CO2 and raidological scrubbers. Kinda need to always be able to communicate and or breath.

It might just be an optical illusion from the angle of the shot, but does the hull (specifically between the track units) look just a bit wider than the old Russ's to anyone else?

I'll agree with aka_mythos on this last post. First models out usually show some errors (probably they were still ajusting the amount of material).

But whoever's in charge of making the kit could've used some greenstuff. Let's just hope it's not another Land Speeder (though even the pics of the ones from GW had the hull problem masked).

If it stays, they'll probably claim it was intended anyway - "Check out the new IMPERIAL GUARD tanks! They may be new but they look old because as everyone knows only SM have good tanks! In fact the IG tanks' AV is 10 or higher because most bullets pass through the slits, and so don't damage the armour!"

Its an optical illusion of sorts. You're just used to seeing certain proportions that have changed differently. Also unfortunately the angles of the two pictures aren't exactly the same, so that is skewing perspective a bit.

No, I'd say the drivers hatch is actualy a tiny bit bigger so it makes that corner look larger, the front hull weapon pod looks the same, but it looks a 2 piece construction over the old 3 piece... and the lower hull section where it was flat only under the hull weapon in the mark 1 hull now stretches across the whole bottom in the mark 2...

still think that rear stowage looks stupid... look at how dumb the hinges look... i liked the old stowage lids at least those made sense and i could hinge them... ok, no more about that... and yeah that thing looks kinda over all warped... and there is no excuse for putting that tail on backwards...

Destrado wrote:I'll agree with aka_mythos on this last post. First models out usually show some errors (probably they were still ajusting the amount of material).

But whoever's in charge of making the kit could've used some greenstuff. Let's just hope it's not another Land Speeder (though even the pics of the ones from GW had the hull problem masked).

If it stays, they'll probably claim it was intended anyway - "Check out the new IMPERIAL GUARD tanks! They may be new but they look old because as everyone knows only SM have good tanks! In fact the IG tanks' AV is 10 or higher because most bullets pass through the slits, and so don't damage the armour!"

I agree who ever assembled that kit should be shot. Anyone whos been doing this hobby for at least a couple years knows how to handle issues lik the warping a gaps the models have. Just because we have a cause or explanation doesn't mean its an excuse. As pinnacle of hobbying they should be able to set a better example.

The other possibility is that its part of their secret plot to make 12 year old beginners not feel as bad when their model does end up (unintentionally) looking like the picture. :p

RUNE wrote:I like to much this version

You missed circling the sponson. For some reason the old top rivet plate seems to be 2 parts as they don't line up at all.

Can you clearify this:

jep'ray wrote:No, I'd say the drivers hatch is actualy a tiny bit bigger so it makes that corner look larger..

jep'ray wrote:...the front hull weapon pod looks the same, but it looks a 2 piece construction over the old 3 piece... and the lower hull section where it was flat only under the hull weapon in the mark 1 hull now stretches across the whole bottom in the mark 2...

They've added a band of plastic across the bottom of the forward sponson to accomodate the fact that its now two pieces.

The bottom and the top...the old one used the top lid to span the gap at the top, and two small dorito shaped pieces for the left and right sides... this new one shows one piece with a band above and below so figure all vertical parts are one piece the top and hatch separate... so i guess the weapon gets glued on after the pod is made with the round bit in the middle...


the drivers hatch window looks a bit larger (taller and wider) than stock which makes the whole drivers hatch a little wider...which will make the front of the tank look wider...

*edit* That's it! the slope of the front armour is shallower, look at the angle of the drivers hatch in relation to the drivers view port. the angle is off they knocked the angle back a little that lack of slope will also make the tank look wider... that hatch and the angle from the vertical from the front of the drivers viewport to the actual angle of the hatch. that triangle is different...or am i seeing things...

Explains why the Armored Company boxes are going oput of stock...

aka_mythos wrote:

Destrado wrote:I'll agree with aka_mythos on this last post. First models out usually show some errors (probably they were still ajusting the amount of material).

But whoever's in charge of making the kit could've used some greenstuff. Let's just hope it's not another Land Speeder (though even the pics of the ones from GW had the hull problem masked).

If it stays, they'll probably claim it was intended anyway - "Check out the new IMPERIAL GUARD tanks! They may be new but they look old because as everyone knows only SM have good tanks! In fact the IG tanks' AV is 10 or higher because most bullets pass through the slits, and so don't damage the armour!"

I agree who ever assembled that kit should be shot. Anyone whos been doing this hobby for at least a couple years knows how to handle issues lik the warping a gaps the models have. Just because we have a cause or explanation doesn't mean its an excuse. As pinnacle of hobbying they should be able to set a better example.

The other possibility is that its part of their secret plot to make 12 year old beginners not feel as bad when their model does end up (unintentionally) looking like the picture. :p

I'll agree that GW's 'Eavy Metal team should be held to a higher standard than your average gamer, but I think you need to chill out. Yeah, it's kinda bad when there are gaps on a showcase model that's going to be in WD, on the box, on the internet, etc. but saying they need to be "shot" because of a couple gaps? My tanks aren't perfectly filled either, and yes most of them were assembled when I first started out a couple years ago and I know better now, but I don't care about a little gap here and there personally.

Would you walk up to me in a store and start telling me I need to be shot because my models aren't to your liking? Sorry I'm not as good a modeler as you are.

@Sid: If assembling & painting models was your job, then yeah, you should be fired for doing a bad job at it.

I do hope they release the new bits as a separate sprue. I don't want to buy a new tank just to get a Punisher turret. I think I've done my bit for buying Russes from GW - they can give a little bit of love back by releasing this separately.

Thanks for the comparison pic, mythos. I was wrong, there do appear to be some changes to the hull. So then they've gone for a complete sprue recut of the original Leman Russ, correct? That's the only reason that these changes make any sense, as they might have had to move some of the components around to make them fit, and maybe someone was tasked to make some minor tweaks to improve the casting process. That and being able to move all the turret pieces and options onto a single sprue. I dunno.

GW has pulled the Demolisher preview from their site.

Crap! They're on to us!

BrookM wrote:GW has pulled the Demolisher preview from their site.

Proving that GW still doesn't understand how the internet works.

Sidstyler wrote:I'll agree that GW's 'Eavy Metal team should be held to a higher standard than your average gamer, but I think you need to chill out. Yeah, it's kinda bad when there are gaps on a showcase model that's going to be in WD, on the box, on the internet, etc. but saying they need to be "shot" because of a couple gaps? My tanks aren't perfectly filled either, and yes most of them were assembled when I first started out a couple years ago and I know better now, but I don't care about a little gap here and there personally.

Would you walk up to me in a store and start telling me I need to be shot because my models aren't to your liking? Sorry I'm not as good a modeler as you are.

I don't really think they should be shot or be subjected to pain or harm. I just meant that they should be held accountable for their half-a$$ed effort. Its a bit of a figure of speech; probably too violent and dated for these sensitive times. The fact that almost every person who's responded in this thread could probably have done a better job, and probably would have done so for free, just speaks poorly for someone who's suppose to be a professional. I apologize if I offended you. Its no attack on you or your abilities. The fact that someone gets paid to do a job most of us here would be passionate about when this person obviously has little or no passion for the hobby, it agitates the spirit.

Honestly when I've seen models assembled that way I usually offer some pointers and to help them improve their abilities. I've never yelled at anyone over their models. Where ever you are out there, sorry, GW guy.

I like the turret but it does seem a bit skinny for a demo cannon. I am bumbed the heavy flamer is old style dual nozzle and not the new style seen on marine stuff.

I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

The wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

*Points and laughs ohhhhhhh you guys are stuck with the ugly LR for another 10 years.

Oh wait... nooooooooooooooooo

Its a conspiracy guys.... watch FW come up with even NEWER upgrade LR kits that will blow you away along with your wallet.

oh please dice gods no................what have they done now.....

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

A lot of people, myself included, like the look of the Russ. Some people don't mind that it is an unrealistc take on a WWI tank and, in fact, think that that adds to the tanks charm.

Do the tracks make sense? No.
Does the turret make sense? Not really.
Is the tank's design impractical if not dangerous? Yeah, it's pretty bad.

Do we care? No.

What HBMC said. I'm happy with the current LR design.

They may be unrealistic, but they look pretty pissed off when they are lined up on the table from my opponents point-of-view. Usually he's not nearly worried about the model kit being "unrealsitic" so much as how many troops he's about to lose. I like the kit, well, the old kit. The new one would be fine with me too but I have... enough of them all ready.

The leamen russ is and probably always will be a gun turret on treads in game terms and in style. I'm fine with that.

darn, I cannot see the pics for some reason!

Painted just right for Blood Axe painted wagon. But assembly just ain't up to GW standard but looted standard looks great.