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.

In the US all of the single blisters are gone (or will soon be). The Multi Melta Devastator is the only one currently available separate from the $45 USD box set in the GWUS Online Store, though it appears the GWUK Online Store still offers the all of options in separate blisters (though who knows for how long). GWUS has a history of removing or making difficult to obtain prior metal versions of figures some plastic kit is replacing. Try finding the metal scouts on the GWUS site (hint: you can't), though GWUK still lists them in the main Space Marine section of their online store. Once released I'd bet dollars to donuts GWUS pulls all the metal figs off the live site..

As to the ridiculous concept that split barrels are better than solid cast ones... why do you think there is a huge range of aftermarket turned metal or cast gun barrels for historical kits? It sure isn't because the split barrels most kits come with are superior or easier to assemble flawlessly. Now, not only does one have the same seams to file and fill on the outside, but there are new, nigh impossible seams on the inside diameter to fill, which will require filling with putty and then drilling out with a pin vise (ie: more work).

What's more, where are you people hearing complaints about drilling out the barrels? How hard is that? It's a very, very basic modeling technique that is both simple AND easy, all you do is use a pin vise to drill 1-2mm deep... If there is a legit complaint, it resides only with the las cannon and it's angled and nested barrel, something GW could have easily made one separate piece molded perpendicular to the sprue (ie: similar how the missile launcher is done). The rest... it just baffles the mind why the heavy bolter, multi melta and plasma cannon have split barrels when a solid piece would have been much better.

Because in injection molding flatter=better. And 2 halves of a tube is much flatter than a tube!

Never mind that there is very little reason they couldn't have simply done barrels separately as a *solid* tube with an indentation at one end () rather than a full tube. "Advanced" modelers would then have a place to start drilling and newblets could just paint the inner part black.

Actually, the true reason appears to be that GW is run by partially brain dead monkeys.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 02/09/2007 7:41 PM
I'm sorry, but that argument is insanely idiotic.  If 2 lbs of human feces is not worth $20 to me then I don't buy it.  But if I want cookies and the only way to get them is to spend $20 for $5 worth of cookies and 2 lbs of poopoo then what do I do?  I can't get my $5 of cookies unless I agree to spend an extra $15 for 2 lbs of crap that I don't want!

While I understand your and (Mauleeds point) by this you are hardly being fair. This boxset is hardly a load of crap with one or two good bits in, more like the other way around.

The boxset offers five marines, one sergeant and four heavy weapons. Even if we allow that you only ever wanted lascannon and heavy bolters that is what you get. The other weapons are just extra. As you will need a sergeant somewhere, even if you dont want them as Devastators there is no loss there.

So in a worst case compare the deal against four metal Devastators. Over here that would cost £16, against £20. $40 against c$45. add the sergeant and you break even.

thats your cookies.

Now for the 'poo'.

Missile launcher - if you dont have lots of tactical boxsets you might not yet have enough for a full missile launcher Dev squad.

Missile launcher loading arm. Mentioned seperately as you dont need to add it (most missile launcher troops dont have one). Personally I wouldnt use it as it would cause the other missile Devs to look incomplete and because bolter Devs seem to make sense more as loaders/ammo carriers than pure bullet shields. What the loading arm is best used for is for a techmarine conversion.

Servo skulls. You wouldnt necessarily rush off and buy them on their own, but its nice to get some.

Multi-melta. Probably fluffy Salamanders only. Howl as much as you want, I found my token multi-melta to be a decent weapon and more soulful than a boring min/max army of lascannon. I will be happy to replace my metal multi-melta that I had from my Salamanders tactical boxset. I wouldnt take more than the one.

Plasma cannon. The real problem in the list. GW is on an 'any weapon that has Ap2 blast has a lot going for it' brainfart. Somehow they believe we cannot get enough of them. Even were I to build fluffy Dark Angels I would draw a line before including one of these stupid worthless overpriced suicide guns. They belong on Demolishers.

 

My complaints over pricing are my complaints over ALL GW pricing. The whole hobby is too expensive, but if you have decided to pay for an army of Space Marines - GW are by no means especially screwing you over with this boxset. 

UNless you need a third or 5th lascannon....then shell out $50ish....instead of $10.

THey took away choice. THat is a problem.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
Whether or not you need every heavy weapon in the box set doesn't make those heavy weapons inherently useless.

Actually yes, it kind of does.  I don't care if someone else finds them useful.  What good does that do me (or them)?  Afterall, I can't use them and someone else can't readily use my heavy weapons can they?  If the heavy weapons that come in my box set are useless to me, then guess what?  They're useless.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
Like I said before, believe it or not but some people use Multi-meltas and Plasma Cannons. Should GW not include those heavy weapons just because you find them useless? Are you not going to buy a car with built-in powered windows because you just love to hand crank windows so much?

Well good for those people.  Unfortunately they aren't subsidising my purchase.  And even if I go through the hassle of reselling, there is fairly low demand for the bits in question so I'm not probably going to get $7 for my multi-meltas.  I guess there are other people who don't think they're worth $7 either, eh?  But if you think multi-meltas are worth $7 then does that mean you're willing to buy everyone's left-over multi-meltas?  Hell, I'm sure even if you lowered your offer to $3 per multi-melta you'd still get a lot of takers.  I'll put the word out.

And I never said that GW shouldn't include multi-meltas or plasma cannons in the box.  What I said was that "bundling" them with the other weapons forces people to buy them in order to get said other weapons.

Your cost/benefit analysis naively assumes that a every weapon has an equal inherent value since GW sets their prices equally.  But that's just not the case.  Just because GW (or you) think that a multi-melta is worth $7 doesn't make it so.  A person might value lascannons at $10 each and multi-meltas at $0 each.  While that person previously had the option of simply buying the lascannon and not buying the multi-melta, they no longer have that option.

In fact, a person might value one lascannon at $10 and an additional lascannon at $0.  But now he can't buy just one lascannon for $10.  Ultimately anyone who doesn't need lascannons, heavy bolters, plasma cannons, and multi-meltas in a 2:2:2:1 ratio is going to be left with weapons they don't want.

Posted By Mahu on 02/09/2007 8:20 PM
To say that the kit doesn't have it's benefits is ludricous. 

I never said the kit doesn't have benefits.  I just said your argument is ridiculous.

 

Posted By Toreador on 02/09/2007 8:51 PM
And you are still working on the assumption that no single heavy weapon packs will be available at all. We don't know this for sure now.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction: no, they will not be available.  I base this on the following considerations:

1. The old heavy weapon blister included a plastic marine torso and legs.  But the recut the plastic tac marine sprue does not lend itself to cutting up and packaging individual plastic parts.  It's not reasonable to expect them to continue to produce the old plastic sprues in addition to the new ones just so they can continue to use them for "legacy" models.
2. After the initial investment for the dies, plastic is cheaper to produce than metal.  Why would they continue to produce metal parts when practically identical parts are available in plastic?

If the old metal parts are available at all they will be only available as loose bits.  The result?  Bits markup + "classic" model markup + shipping and handling = a lot more expensive.  And it's not certain they will bother to provide the old metal parts as bits at all since not only are the plastics similar if not identical in design, but they superior in many ways (eg, better fitting, better balanced, easier to convert).

There's also the possibility that they won't provide the new heavy weapon sprue for bits orders.  They have a track record of not making high-demand sprues available for order (eg, carnifex body sprue, dreadnought sprue)

And of course this all of this is predicated on the assumption that they will continue do bits orders in general.

 

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 5:06 AM
While I understand your and (Mauleeds point) by this you are hardly being fair. This boxset is hardly a load of crap with one or two good bits in, more like the other way around.

I agree.  But that's just my personal assessment of the contents.  If all I wanted were lascannons I wouldn't feel the same way.  My point was that things like lascannons and multi-meltas have no objective inherent value.  It's the individual who decides what something is worth to them.

Does this mean GW should make lascannons available in separate blisters?  Well, that depends on which is more profitable.  If all I wanted was a purity seal then the tac marine box set would be full of absolutely useless crap.  Does that mean GW should make purity seals available in separate blisters?

Something we havent really addressed:

1. People seem satisfied with plastic tacticals so far with one of each special and a missile launcher. The missile launchers are seperated for Devastators, metal devastators were bought as tactical heavy and the excess special weapons went in the bits box.
Now manty people would not have enough plasma for their min/max tactical squads, but in all honesty we have been able to make do quite nicely for the most part.

2. Dont think of it as a Devastator box, except when buying one, or talking about it here to avoid confusion. The only Devastator miniature in the boxset is the sergeant - and even then he could just as well be a sergeant of a different squad. You should look at the box as part of the whole - directly alongside the tactical and command sprues and decide what goes where. You will soon notice just how much redundancy there is in every boxset - which should not be seen as waste, but options.

3. Remember when Dreadnoughts came out in plastic, noone was happy because there were no twin-linked autocannon. You could either have the overpriced twin-linked lascannon, or the assault cannon that every knew was totally useless. Everyone also knew noone would possibly want an assault cannon unless to field a minimum priced close combat dread (non Blood Angel style). Is this still true? Do assault canon dreads still appear worthless today?
Maybe when SM redux comes along, if it comes along, plasma cannon could be fixed. Maybe even just for space marines. They may get circuit breakers, points reduction and or the blast template rules could be changed. Who knows by next year or the year after players may be scrambling to upgrade their tac squads with new improved plasma cannon.

4. The plastic SM kits being produced today are part of a once-over that replaces in time all current SM material with plastic. Chapter specific items will be on chapter sprues added to generic kits. It IS a viable and quality way forward. Who knows where it will lead. GW have the option to make chapters very different giving them favoured weapons - and compensations if the favoured weapon is not the one you most often see.

In before lock!

What, too soon?

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 6:34 AM
3. Remember when Dreadnoughts came out in plastic, noone was happy because there were no twin-linked autocannon. You could either have the overpriced twin-linked lascannon, or the assault cannon that every knew was totally useless. Everyone also knew noone would possibly want an assault cannon unless to field a minimum priced close combat dread (non Blood Angel style). Is this still true? Do assault canon dreads still appear worthless today?
Maybe when SM redux comes along, if it comes along, plasma cannon could be fixed. Maybe even just for space marines. They may get circuit breakers, points reduction and or the blast template rules could be changed. Who knows by next year or the year after players may be scrambling to upgrade their tac squads with new improved plasma cannon.

Sadly, I think youre right.

Originally we have lots of options. Then they make a sprue that has less options. Then they redo the rules to fit in with the plastic models.

"Whoops! We didnt put it two of each weapon on the termie sprue! Whoops! We didnt put a twinlinked autocannon on the dread sprue! Whoops! Well we arent going to spend more money to retool the model molds to fit in with the rules, well just make the rules fit in with the models" etc.

It kinda makes me wonder if they can make a good ruleset when basing the rules off of models and not the other way around. But then again, this is no suprise tactic GW is doing either.

Or perhaps due to their production and design schedule, their models are made with the new rules in mind and you just don't see the new rules yet.

Posted By Wayfarer on 02/10/2007 11:28 AM
Or perhaps due to their production and design schedule, their models are made with the new rules in mind and you just don't see the new rules yet.

yeah.....I dont think so.

Do you honestly think that they made the dreadnought with the 4th ed rules in mind to be implementd 4 years later? or the termies where they make the rules, then make the models that dont fit with them, then make more rules 2 years later?


You seriously have to be *fudge*ing kidding me right?

If that were true, we would be seeing considerably tighter rules for their games. i think you give them faaaaar more credit than they could ever hope of deserving. Even game companies with airtight rules like MTG dont forsee production in terms of half of a decade.

You underestimate the power of the secret design technique named 'accident.'

No Hellfury they dont.

The biggest proof they dont comes with Razorbacks. The original oficial kit had lascannon and twin linked plasma. The latest Codex dovetailed to the sprue removed that option, thus voiding old stock.
I could image dropping turret options they never produced, but they also void options they did and no longer directly cover.

Saying that part of the attempt at getting back to basics is to include all the options you can in the plastic kits. This helps in two way. First by keeping pace with current options. Even if noone ever uses a plasma cannon from the boxset GW are keeping faith with us by not removing the option to do so through their boxsets. Second they keep their options open for future versions of the game.

I dont think there is any plan to fix plasma cannon, but they could do so. With dread arms they have painted themselves into a corner. Possibly why Dark Angel dreads have plasma cannon and multi melta arm options. Only guessing here, but maybe that sprue will not be chapter specific - Dark Angel bits might just be icons they could add on. This in turn opens up SM Redux to include those weapons back as options - and so on.

I can forgive GW if metal dreads are phased out, the company needs to head towards plastic only armies for solid financial reasons. Eventually metal parts will be reserved for characters and limited edition models. As the companies most important and lucrative line starting with Space Marines makes sense. By providing two lascannon and two heavy bolters as standard it proves that someone there is listening to the customers. Not too long ago GW would have provided just one of those weapon sprues - and we know it. However GW is a large dinosaur, while the model development teram is listening the bean counters continue to whistle away.

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 12:40 PM
No Hellfury they dont.

First of all, they dont..."what"?  What is it exactly that they dont do?

I ask because I wish to reply further, but want to know what hell tell youre talking about.

Posted By Iorek on 02/10/2007 7:11 AM
In before lock!

What, too soon?

Why would a livley conversation/debate that hasn't degenerated into name-calling be closed Iorek?

Or are you just trying to be clever?

BYE

"Do you honestly think that they made the dreadnought with the 4th ed rules in mind to be implementd 4 years later?"

"No Hellfury they dont."

But basically a comment - agreeing with you concerning your response to Wayfarer. The treatment we got over Razorbacks is the proof that the dont so much as plan ahead as cut/paste afterwards.

 Have to be careful when you joke around these parts. Everyone is itching for an argument.

Also, Pollo over at WiP posted a thread about the new DA army box with a few pics. Thought you guys would like to see it.

z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php

Posted By Wayfarer on 02/10/2007 1:47 PM

 Have to be careful when you joke around these parts. Everyone is itching for an argument.

Also, Pollo over at WiP posted a thread about the new DA army box with a few pics. Thought you guys would like to see it.

z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php

Nah bud, I got the joke after your second post, Wayfarer.

Posted By Wayfarer on 02/10/2007 1:47 PM

Also, Pollo over at WiP posted a thread about the new DA army box with a few pics. Thought you guys would like to see it.

z11.invisionfree.com/Work_In_Progress/index.php

Ugh, they really are awful, something this MM marine clearly illustrates. Clunky, flash ridden, blobbed details that will require a lot more work to bring to a high standard than the finicky metal bitz ever did. Yuck.  Thanks for the linkage tho!

I have to second the person that said the MM guy is clunky. Ugh. That backpack just doesnt look right on him at all....

Well it looks like he just rushed to tac them together and didn't bother with flash or glue, so I wouldn't be 'too' hard on the models just from that pic alone.

I think I have my Adeptus Mechanicus guys.

Posted By Orlanth on 02/10/2007 12:40 PM
By providing two lascannon and two heavy bolters as standard it proves that someone there is listening to the customers. Not too long ago GW would have provided just one of those weapon sprues - and we know it.

And then they would have waited until everyone bought multiple boxes before nerfing the lascannon.  And/or they'd have changed the rules for dev squads to allow only allow a maximum of 1 of each weapon type.

I'm actually surprised they decided to include 2 each of lascannon and heavy bolters.  Now all they have to do is make the sprue available for bits order and I'll be so astounded my butt will explode.

No, I understand that. I expect flash and stuff. what I'm saying is the backpack itself looks akward.

Everything on that MM Marine looks bad because he did a crap job of putting it together. If he took his time and assembled, glued, and cleaned up properly that MM Marine would look fine.

Uh, are you people looking at the same figure as me? I'm saying that even taking the time to properly assemble and clean it, that it is *still* going to look like crap. Without putty, there is going to be an obvious split on the inside of the MM barrels, the backpack is going to need puttying to smooth out the seams, etc... I'm not begrudging anyone for being happy that a plastic set is finally out, but it's a poorly engineered one with unavoidable defects that we are being asked to pay a premium for. No thanks.

It looks pretty typical of GW's recent plastic quality. It's not whining, but GW models do have an awful lot more flash and mould lines than they did 5 or 10 years ago.

It's not as nice as the old metal model, but when both are painted to an equal standard, you'll be hard pressed to notice a difference from the other side of the table.

No, you guys are DENSE.

I expect flash and glue and stuff. I'm saying the BACKPACK doesnt go well with eth MM. It looks akward.

Cleaned up and painted its STILL going to be an akward model....

You remind me of those commercials for the special screwdrivers or can openers that purport revolutionize the process of driving screws and opening cans. They always open with some guy trying to operate a screw driver, and a voiceover guy says something like "tired of clumsy, conventional screwdrivers?" Then the guy in the picture makes some exaggerated, clumsy motion and then grabs his wrist in pain. "All those strained wrists and battered knuckles, OUCH!"

Yeah, wow. I'm always getting severely injured when I try to operate a screwdriver. Thank GOD for the Handi-zip Roto Drive.

It's like you're willing to be totally slowed around styrene cement, just to make your point. How hard is it to assemble a plastic model correctly? Hint: Not hard.

Somehow you're a total whiz with a pin vise, and you can drill out a barrel like shooting fish in said barrel, but when it comes to getting a decent fit, flowing in a bit of liquid cement, then giving it a once over with a file, it's the most incredible trial and impossibility ever.

I can count the times I've needed putty or green stuff to assemble an uncustomized GW model on one hand, and every one of them was a metal model.

Look... Both plastic and metal are going to have mold lines and imperfections to clean. The metal seamlines are harder and more time consuming to deal with, simply because metal is harder. If you have no trouble with metal, then you have no trouble with plastic. It's the same skillset, only easier.

Edit:  I thought back, and I realized I did do some putty fills on my Devilfish/Hammerheads.

Ok...perhaps I'm completely blind.

 

But wasn't there supposed to be a set of kneeling legs on one of those sprues?  Is it there somewhere and I'm just missing it?

Posted By Phryxis on 02/11/2007 5:46 PM

It's like you're willing to be totally slowed around styrene cement, just to make your point. How hard is it to assemble a plastic model correctly? Hint: Not hard.

Somehow you're a total whiz with a pin vise, and you can drill out a barrel like shooting fish in said barrel, but when it comes to getting a decent fit, flowing in a bit of liquid cement, then giving it a once over with a file, it's the most incredible trial and impossibility ever.

I can count the times I've needed putty or green stuff to assemble an uncustomized GW model on one hand, and every one of them was a metal model.

Edit:  I thought back, and I realized I did do some putty fills on my Devilfish/Hammerheads.