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.

Size-wise, the Tomahawk is a smigde bigger than the Defender, and it looks beter (the Defender's guns look kinda weird).

Quality/detail... hm. They have waaaay more parts than they really need to have, if only they fething knew what they were doing. The kind of detail that the assembled minis have doesn't, in any way, form or planet, needs the kind of sprue separation done here.

As to the actual details, there's a very fine line between too much detail and too little detail, and between something designed as a playing piece and something designed as a show model, and Palladium seems to have... failed in every point. Which is something I really didn't feel possible, but there it is.

These minis are too detailed for something designed as a playing piece first and foremost, but at the same time the detail there is is simply too few for a show model. The accuracy of the detail there is is iffy at best, inexistent in a lot of places, and in others the sculptor has basically done whatever the hell they wanted.

The sprue separation and layout, combined with the part numbers would seem to indicate a mini designed for show instead of a mini designed for a game with massed armies, but not only IS indeed designed for a game of massed battles... they don't even replicate faithfully the lineart. Gah. This is literally, the worst of both worlds.

Ah, well, it is what it is. The decals sprue is superb, so there's that. And you can make them look decent, if you take the time to do it and to fix the designs' mistakes. Or you can preted to do it, like me






The funny (for some values of funny, of course) thing? I spent much more time assembling the mini and making the seams somewhat presentable than actually painting.

Ahahahaha!!!

Sorry, but the bit of it taking longer to assemble than to paint is on the mark.

Oh well, a couple more pods to do this weekend and then the less intensive painting will happen.

Glad to hear the decals were good, I was worried of them being too small to deal with well.

Thanks for the detailed rundown. In other Robotech news, I listened to a podcast interview (sorry, don't have the link but you can google it) from Templecon a week or two ago where Ninja Division attended. The interview was about 15-20 minutes and they talked in length about all their games like SDE, the kickstarted version of SDE from last year, and upcoming stuff for Relic Knights. Anyone care to guess how much they mentioned regarding Robotech wave 2? Hint: It's one less sentance than Palladium does in their weekly update.

Oh, don't get me wrong. They're frigging small. That yellow triangle must be 2mm high, tops.

They're just good quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Thanks for the detailed rundown. In other Robotech news, I listened to a podcast interview (sorry, don't have the link but you can google it) from Templecon a week or two ago where Ninja Division attended. The interview was about 15-20 minutes and they talked in length about all their games like SDE, the kickstarted version of SDE from last year, and upcoming stuff for Relic Knights. Anyone care to guess how much they mentioned regarding Robotech wave 2? Hint: It's one less sentance than Palladium does in their weekly update.

Yeah, color me surprised ^^

I suspect that the only upcoming possible chance for news about wave 2 would be at Adepticon if palladium had the 3d prints of the new minis on show; barring that, the next opportunity would be GAMA 2015 sometime in the spring. What I realistically expect is that Palladium will instead show the Wave 2 3D prints they got back in Nov/Dec 2013 and put on mismatched bases for GAMA a few months later at Adepticon and leave our mouths watering for even the tiniest morsel of real news beyond just platitudes.

Is that a plastic Mad Cat? And the ones above it, the fugly robots, are from the new Battletech starter?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Is that a plastic Mad Cat? And the ones above it, the fugly robots, are from the new Battletech starter?

That is indeed a plastic Mad Cat.

The fugly robots are from the old Battletech starter (the 25th edition one), as is the Thor. The Mad Cat and the Battlemaster are from the newest one.

Wow, great pics. I think I may need to pick up the new Battletech set, that Battlemaster is awesome

I have the Battlemaster and the Mad Cat....that have one pose.....well the Battlemaster you can angle the arms but that is it.

Man, I wish battletech would just feth right off to its own thread!

Joyboozer wrote:
Man, I wish battletech would just feth right off to its own thread!

Ah but the offering of the "unseen" by Robotech is what also drives some of the sales.
It is also the game people turned to when Robotech had nothing since HG just sat on the license.

 Mike1975 wrote:
I have the Battlemaster and the Mad Cat....that have one pose.....well the Battlemaster you can angle the arms but that is it.

Actually the Mad Cat is at least as poseable as any of the Destroids I've assembled so far, if not more (the torso tilts, the amrs and legs too...). It's also 6 pieces, instead of 18.

As to the Battlemaster, well...



I did that without even glueing it, so I'd say on par with the destroids (quite a bit better than the Spartan, actually, for the pieces). Only it's 5 pieces. And you don't need to glue it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joyboozer wrote:
Man, I wish battletech would just feth right off to its own thread!

Man, I wish I had my pledge instead of having to make do with Battletech minis!

Seriously now, I'd say that comparing the minis is quite apropos myself, taking into account that, well, they have sold them too.

 Albertorius wrote:
I did that without even glueing it, so I'd say on par with the destroids (quite a bit better than the Spartan, actually, for the pieces). Only it's 5 pieces. And you don't need to glue it.

Yup. While the Destroids have more options, with the exception of the torso twist and the smaller base size, it's similarly posable from what you've shown. There's some mold lines that'd need clearing up, and some minor deformities, but that's nothing compared to the work needed to get a RRT miniature ready for play. Speaking for myself, it'd have been a small price to pay to have it playable out of the box, and I'd have probably kept my pledges.

Basically, KevCo had the choice of making showpiece model kits, or gaming pieces, and split the difference, satisfying neither camp. Sure, there are bound to be some people happy with the current showing (though most positive reviews have been "well, it's not THAT bad", which isn't a glowing recommendation), but I doubt there would be many that wouldn't be happier with either more ease, or more detail. I think they picked the point that was least satisfactory to nearly everyone.

That gif would blow palladiums collective half brain, "oh my, someone call china and see if we can get moving models? Only see if they have a cheaper version"

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:
I have the Battlemaster and the Mad Cat....that have one pose.....well the Battlemaster you can angle the arms but that is it.

Actually the Mad Cat is at least as poseable as any of the Destroids I've assembled so far, if not more (the torso tilts, the amrs and legs too...). It's also 6 pieces, instead of 18.

As to the Battlemaster, well...



I did that without even glueing it, so I'd say on par with the destroids (quite a bit better than the Spartan, actually, for the pieces). Only it's 5 pieces. And you don't need to glue it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joyboozer wrote:
Man, I wish battletech would just feth right off to its own thread!

Man, I wish I had my pledge instead of having to make do with Battletech minis!

Seriously now, I'd say that comparing the minis is quite apropos myself, taking into account that, well, they have sold them too.

I wish they were more like BT but you can't honestly try to tell me that that stiff arm legs and arm poses compares to what we have.....any I have one so yes I understand that they are like 6 pieces. Somthing like 10-12 and bendable legs and arms are what would have been ideal.

And yes I have assembled all my destroids myself. So while I applaud the attempt...minis like that would not have enough poseability to make much difference. Battletech and RRT are VERY different. I have a full Regiment of BT minis. You don't need to have more than a couple of the same mini on the table. With RRT you MUST have several of each and that level of poseability would make the table really boring and sad. BT is made for variety, RRT is not. Imagine a Star League Battallion of all the same mech.....

Just as an aside, warmachine has like 3 poses per trooper model. And they're all monopose. And yet, very few people would call it really boring or sad on the table

Sining wrote:
Just as an aside, warmachine has like 3 poses per trooper model. And they're all monopose. And yet, very few people would call it really boring or sad on the table

And how many do you typically use on the table at a time when you play? I've seen a few games. Never more than like 20 models per side if I remember right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus they have a greater variety of units to work with.....

Depends how you want to build your army. Khador and Cryx can go very infantry heavy, ranging from 30-40 models on the table or you can have as few as 7

So I've played with Zentraedi and have had 40+ units just for them on the table. When you have 5-6 units to choose from and most of them Pods, you need to at least try to pose them differently. Running with one leg forward or the other. Standing, Jumping, etc. Those are some of the least poseable but it works fairly well.

With the UEDF you have basically 5 options now. Veritechs or destroids. A VF-1A is basically the same as a VF-1J. So having those in different poses is much more important. Where things fail is with fighters. The only variation is paint and missiles. I've tried to vary stand heights too. I really wish the wings could have swept. It would have added a lot to the game.

I would think that with 40 models on table, the more worrying part would be keeping track of which is damaged and by how much. At least with wmh or wh40k, most models only have 1hp so if they're damaged, off the table they go

Naw, with the Squadron cards that is not a hard part to do and does not take much time, just make sure you know which models are which. I made that mistake my first game.

Is there a sticker or something that we can use dry erase on? I think if I could find something that works with dry erase markers to stick on the little stand up portion of the base, I could write a designation on each, and change as necessary.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Is there a sticker or something that we can use dry erase on? I think if I could find something that works with dry erase markers to stick on the little stand up portion of the base, I could write a designation on each, and change as necessary.

I bought some small stickers at the local hobby shop with some letters and numbers on them

Mike, how DO you keep track of all those different battlepod hit points? I'm guessing numbers on the pod base somewhere and on the cards?

Coming from playing mostly 40K, I was aghast when I saw all the hit points for the various units and weapon damage. However, having played some (digital) Warmachine and remembering battletech, it doesn't seem quite so bad. Though I still think if they had done it like Regult = 1 wound, it would have been much better.

Considering the number of people I've seen who seem to be embracing intentional uniformity between their figures, the desire to have variety definitely isn't universal.

And with like 2 different leg stances on the Battlepods, it's not like we're getting much more variety out of them than the above dancing Battlemaster. Hell I went as far as intentionally using the 'wrong' leg pairings just to get a bit more variety without having to hack them apart.

Would people have complained if we'd had similar "poseability"? Probably, but as noted many times, with this many people there will *always* be bitching.

But at least with low parts counts the game could have been playable within a much shorter timeframe for most folks, and considering the apparently millions of different Robotech/Macross models out there, attempting to split the difference between ultra detail (sacrificing user friendliness) and playability (ease of assembly and resilience) they seem to have just ended up somewhat annoying both sides.

As I've said since "Spartangate" early last year (ye gods it was a full year ago...), at this size and from the usual table distance, the need for OMG ULTRA DETAIL has been a fools errand. I would've happily accepted 20% less detail for 50% fewer parts, or whatever that split might've been.

And yes, it is a moot point now.

I, for one, am looking forward to 50+ piece Super VT's, because of DETAIL and MOUTH WATERING and JAZZ HANDS.

:-D

@Megatron: I believe the little tab on the back is supposed to have a number or something on it to denote the unit, and somebody even found little tags from a heat-shrink wrapping kit for wiring that apparently are the perfect size for them. I'm thinking a combination of colours dot/tag and number to denote supports or full squads would be reasonable, as that'd give a ton of combinations.

At least in theory. My model count remains at 12 and with nobody else in my group building anything or wishing to devote our now rare (due to scheduling) games days to RRT, I can't foresee playing it, well, ever.

It's something I suppose I could change if I wanted to, but I'd rather spend my downtime perusing forums or catching up on shows or playing my Hardcore Season 2 Witch Doctor in Diablo 3 than clipping, trimming and gluing those itty bitty little pieces for a game my friends don't want to play (and I can't be arsed to build for it's own sake), and if 2+ of us are together, then Shadows of Brimstone is hitting the table and we're going mining for treasure! Or X-Wing. Or Eldritch Horror. Or Netrunner. Or X-Com. Or Mansions of Madness. Or Fortune and Glory. Or Merchants and Marauders. Or Xia. Or Cards Against Humanity. Etc. Etc. Etc.

A shame. Had they actually had wave one out in 2013 I could have seen my friends and I being neck deep in figures and games by now. Oh well.

 Mike1975 wrote:
I wish they were more like BT but you can't honestly try to tell me that that stiff arm legs and arm poses compares to what we have.....any I have one so yes I understand that they are like 6 pieces. Somthing like 10-12 and bendable legs and arms are what would have been ideal.

Yes, because this guy is so much better (which is the one I was comparing with):

http://www.crittohit.com/imagestore/articles/7281/ninja-division-robotech-rpg-tactics-spartan-test-sprue-paint.jpg
http://www.crittohit.com/imagestore/articles/7281/ninja-division-robotech-rpg-tactics-spartan-test-sprue-paint2.jpg

For one I needed a whole minute to cut up from the sprue and to assemble (didn't even need glue). For another I needed about 45 minutes of cutting, glueing and swearing. I'm not sure the work is worth it, for the net gain.

As I said, Palladium's way to do the sprues is, literally, the worst possible. It is too fiddly, too time-consuming, not user friendly at all. And to top it all, the net gaing for your efforts is a detail/quality/poseability level worthy of Games Workshop plastic miniatures, circa 1985 (which, btw, had about a third of the pieces).

So no, not ideal, no. [/understatement]

And yes I have assembled all my destroids myself. So while I applaud the attempt...minis like that would not have enough poseability to make much difference. Battletech and RRT are VERY different. I have a full Regiment of BT minis. You don't need to have more than a couple of the same mini on the table. With RRT you MUST have several of each and that level of poseability would make the table really boring and sad. BT is made for variety, RRT is not. Imagine a Star League Battallion of all the same mech.....

False analogy. Battletech has hundreds of different mech designs, and even if the individual minis aren't usually very poseable (because they're not intended to be), it's very rare to have multiples of the same 'mech in a game. So usually you will literally have one special mini for every unit in the game, even at regimental level, with the possible exception of tanks and infantry, if you use them.

OTOH, RRT right now have a grand total of 4 produced minis for one side and... what, five and one with different head options for the other. And it's a game that requires lots of minis, to booth. So I dare to say you'll be seeing a lot more repetition in one than in the other, because the poseability of the RRT minis, when you get down to it and compare the poseability options with the parts level... it's just not there. Too much work for too little gain. And the retail prices for the metal Btech minis are not really all that higher than the plastic RRT ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
@Megatron: I believe the little tab on the back is supposed to have a number or something on it to denote the unit, and somebody even found little tags from a heat-shrink wrapping kit for wiring that apparently are the perfect size for them. I'm thinking a combination of colours dot/tag and number to denote supports or full squads would be reasonable, as that'd give a ton of combinations.

Actually, I think that the little tab is to pick up the mini from the base.

I mean, you can't actually pick it up from any other part of the base (too thin) without touching the mini...

Less parts does not automatically equal less detail. This is often repeateded and totally false.

We could have had RRT minis with half the parts count with more detail on the model than what we recieved.

 Swabby wrote:
Less parts does not automatically equal less detail. This is often repeateded and totally false.

We could have had RRT minis with half the parts count with more detail on the model than what we recieved.

Exactly. Less parts do usually mean less poseability.

...of course, not the way these parts have been done.

 Stormonu wrote:
Mike, how DO you keep track of all those different battlepod hit points? I'm guessing numbers on the pod base somewhere and on the cards?

Coming from playing mostly 40K, I was aghast when I saw all the hit points for the various units and weapon damage. However, having played some (digital) Warmachine and remembering battletech, it doesn't seem quite so bad. Though I still think if they had done it like Regult = 1 wound, it would have been much better.

I use these


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mike1975 wrote:
I wish they were more like BT but you can't honestly try to tell me that that stiff arm legs and arm poses compares to what we have.....any I have one so yes I understand that they are like 6 pieces. Somthing like 10-12 and bendable legs and arms are what would have been ideal.

Yes, because this guy is so much better (which is the one I was comparing with):

http://www.crittohit.com/imagestore/articles/7281/ninja-division-robotech-rpg-tactics-spartan-test-sprue-paint.jpg
http://www.crittohit.com/imagestore/articles/7281/ninja-division-robotech-rpg-tactics-spartan-test-sprue-paint2.jpg

For one I needed a whole minute to cut up from the sprue and to assemble (didn't even need glue). For another I needed about 45 minutes of cutting, glueing and swearing. I'm not sure the work is worth it, for the net gain.

As I said, Palladium's way to do the sprues is, literally, the worst possible. It is too fiddly, too time-consuming, not user friendly at all. And to top it all, the net gaing for your efforts is a detail/quality/poseability level worthy of Games Workshop plastic miniatures, circa 1985 (which, btw, had about a third of the pieces).

So no, not ideal, no. [/understatement]

And yes I have assembled all my destroids myself. So while I applaud the attempt...minis like that would not have enough poseability to make much difference. Battletech and RRT are VERY different. I have a full Regiment of BT minis. You don't need to have more than a couple of the same mini on the table. With RRT you MUST have several of each and that level of poseability would make the table really boring and sad. BT is made for variety, RRT is not. Imagine a Star League Battallion of all the same mech.....

False analogy. Battletech has hundreds of different mech designs, and even if the individual minis aren't usually very poseable (because they're not intended to be), it's very rare to have multiples of the same 'mech in a game. So usually you will literally have one special mini for every unit in the game, even at regimental level, with the possible exception of tanks and infantry, if you use them.

OTOH, RRT right now have a grand total of 4 produced minis for one side and... what, five and one with different head options for the other. And it's a game that requires lots of minis, to booth. So I dare to say you'll be seeing a lot more repetition in one than in the other, because the poseability of the RRT minis, when you get down to it and compare the poseability options with the parts level... it's just not there. Too much work for too little gain. And the retail prices for the metal Btech minis are not really all that higher than the plastic RRT ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:
@Megatron: I believe the little tab on the back is supposed to have a number or something on it to denote the unit, and somebody even found little tags from a heat-shrink wrapping kit for wiring that apparently are the perfect size for them. I'm thinking a combination of colours dot/tag and number to denote supports or full squads would be reasonable, as that'd give a ton of combinations.

Actually, I think that the little tab is to pick up the mini from the base.

I mean, you can't actually pick it up from any other part of the base (too thin) without touching the mini...

You basically had the exact same point that I did. You are not meant to have a large number of the same minis in Battletech so being poseable in not a priority but with RRT you use a large number of the same minis. ALSO keep in mind that Squadron Organizations force you to use the same minis in squadrons. So you can argue parts/poseability, I'm with you there, I wanted less parts, but you cannot argue that poseability with RRT is not required. Like I said, having a full battalion of one unit gets dull quick.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swabby wrote:
Less parts does not automatically equal less detail. This is often repeateded and totally false.

We could have had RRT minis with half the parts count with more detail on the model than what we recieved.

It's a balance of parts, detail, and pose and I think that ND did a poor job of it. ND was the champion and had their name out there on this one. Some may argue that PB and HG pushed them too it. It may well be true. But they also do not have minis experience or knowledge. ND does. While the blame is shared I still give ND the Lion's share on this.

You may not have required poseability in Battletech, but I did.

Having 12 Victors on the shelf meant that I needed different poses for them to not be boring. Ditto the 7 Marauders, lots of Warhammers, literally 2 dozen Archers... And from what I'm seeing, even many of the old pewter mechs were more poseable - or as poseable - as RRT minis.

I often played multiple of a single mech type when we played, even at Lance level. Redundancy has always been a good idea. But that's getting off topic.