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.

Terrible pose, I remember way back in the day (maybe during the launch of 3rd edition?) when they made a big to-do over moving away from 'guy posing for picture' miniatures to actual fighting poses, guess that's been forgotten

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, I thought it was actually a conversion at first.

The question then becomes: Are AoBR captains going to increase in value from this since the conversion potential is plainly obvious?

Doubtful, unless Sicarus's rules become insanely good.

I'm certain that pose goes back to the 90's, rather than just the AOBR captain

 Dentry wrote:
Did anyone else immediately make the following connection?

Yes, and actually the cloak is very close to the Dark Vengeance CSM Lord's cloak. Flowy cloaks and fluttering scrolls are the current trend, due to the move to plastic single models.

I do like the ICs, I think they show a decent amount of character and that's always fun. Dunno if it's ment to be a tribute or to replace finecasts with plastic, because the captain is close to Sicarius, the Libby reminds me of the SW Rune Priest, and the chaplain looks somewhat familiar as well..

Any chance that the Centurians aren't real and GW is just playing a prank on us?

If these and the new Hobbit models are an indication of where GW is headed, I don't think I want to tag along anymore.

 warboss wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Ok I cut the inner and outer toes off the left one. Better or worse?

I think it looks better without the side toes but that only improves the look of the lower extremities. These models fall into the space guppy category of "I need to change too many things to make the model look acceptable". I did it with the Storm Raven and turned mine into a mini-Thunderhawk but these models (and the guppy) require too much to get just a little visual appeal.

Terrible by marine standards, lodsa options for da orks though!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Doubtful, unless Sicarus's rules become insanely good.

I thought I had been told that it wasn't Sicarius (because I had already asked if that model was a new Sicarius model)

just thought of something: Will the Vanguard box replace the assault marine box? With Vanguard and tactical now at $40 will ASM and DC remain $35?

Well its probably a better value. You get the same number of bodies and more weapon options.

Rumored limited edition BT and Second Founding cover. Looks pretty good, depending on how the other covers turn out.

Okay, another attempt at fixing the centurions

AmCjkh wrote:
Rumored limited edition BT and Second Founding cover. Looks pretty good, depending on how the other covers turn out.

Spoiler:

Very pretty, not £55 pretty, but nice nonetheless.

If I'm faced with a similarly nice Raven Guard cover, I may waver, but I suspect that price tag will do the job of reinforcing my willpower just nicely.

That BT artwork is cool. I'm really disappointed that BT are being rolled into the SM codex.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
That BT artwork is cool. I'm really disappointed that BT are being rolled into the SM codex.

Yes, getting up to date rules and access to all SM units is indeed horrible.

It really will be better. You have all the existing marine units plus your special rules, and maybe a few unique units. BTs weren't different enough to warrant a separate codex.

The only bad part is you have to effectively buy 2 codices.

The Centurions are probably the ugliest and most convincingly 'toy' like models I think I've seen from GW for 40k, even more so than the Lord of Skulls and the mini storm raven thingy.

Tank variants looks nice though, as do the vanguard blokes.

Those bearded heads will look great on some BT I think.If templars come with the main dex,

I expect them to figure in White Dwarf, as they would still be pretty high profile.


But GWs "leak marketing conspiracy" probably hold of the pics for suspence



How silly Blood Angels vill feel when the new vanilla vanguard veteran rules take place.

Or if they make assault marines better for vanilla (as they need to be fixed, from what I have heard) .

Angry Ron wrote:
Okay, another attempt at fixing the centurions

That looks an almost implausible amount of work, you're completely hacking up the body and thinning the legs, removing the shoulders and then all the resculpting that goes along with it. Why spend the sort of money GW will charge only to totally rebuild the figure? You'd be better off buying any similar miniature and converting that, or making something from scratch. I don't get people paying so much for figures they know they'll have to completely cannibalise to 'fix' them. No wonder GW make money.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
That BT artwork is cool. I'm really disappointed that BT are being rolled into the SM codex.

Don't be disappointed yet - all appearances so far are that their unique rules and squads are intact.

Maybe!

Indeed!

Nice Templars cover, if the interior artwork is of that standard i may be tempted to buy the regular codex.

Late comer to the party here.

The new tank, dam cool, those terminator things? Sorry, no, just no :(
Im kinda agog being honest.
GWs recent releases overall have been very good sculpt-wise imho but those guys?

warboss wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:
Ok I cut the inner and outer toes off the left one. Better or worse?



I think it looks better without the side toes but that only improves the look of the lower extremities. These models fall into the space guppy category of "I need to change too many things to make the model look acceptable". I did it with the Storm Raven and turned mine into a mini-Thunderhawk but these models (and the guppy) require too much to get just a little visual appeal.



Terrible by marine standards, lodsa options for da orks though!

Very nice LS, much better than the originals

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Angry Ron wrote:
Okay, another attempt at fixing the centurions

That looks an almost implausible amount of work, you're completely hacking up the body and thinning the legs, removing the shoulders and then all the resculpting that goes along with it. Why spend the sort of money GW will charge only to totally rebuild the figure? You'd be better off buying any similar miniature and converting that, or making something from scratch. I don't get people paying so much for figures they know they'll have to completely cannibalise to 'fix' them. No wonder GW make money.

It is a tough sell for me, that's for sure.

Should open up some awesome 'counts as' opportunities for enterprising 3rd party bits/model makers though.

I'm looking forward to what they come up with!

Honestly, I don't intend on buying them, I'm just having a bit of fun thinking of ways they could be improved.

If I didn't get back into the painting & modelling aspect alone (I have time to paint or play, not both) that Black Templar cover would be on my list of things to buy.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Angry Ron wrote:
Okay, another attempt at fixing the centurions

That looks an almost implausible amount of work, you're completely hacking up the body and thinning the legs, removing the shoulders and then all the resculpting that goes along with it. Why spend the sort of money GW will charge only to totally rebuild the figure? You'd be better off buying any similar miniature and converting that, or making something from scratch. I don't get people paying so much for figures they know they'll have to completely cannibalise to 'fix' them. No wonder GW make money.

You're absolutely right. I am a conversion MANIAC - very few models escape the conversion knife in my armies (even basic troopers), but I'm not about to spend nearly the cost of a full Dreadnaught each for these fugly guys, and THEN spend a ton of time cutting them all to bits to try to make them look passable. Especially since, though I really like GW's plastic kits in general, I find them a little TOO multi-part... alot of work already goes into clipping, shaving/filing, glueing, etc. for figs that look great with no conversion work.

I saw find a better-looking more reasonably priced alternative. Or, hell, just put 3 Dreadnaughts on the Centurions' bases if you've got that much spare cash.

-C6

DRC wrote:
New space marines? Not to be the killjoy but doesnt this happen every edition?

You must not have been into Warhammer very long, Space Marines are arguably the most popular and most widely used army in 40k. Hence why almost half the armies in 40k are some form of Space Marine. Learn it, live it, love it.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Angry Ron wrote:
Okay, another attempt at fixing the centurions

That looks an almost implausible amount of work, you're completely hacking up the body and thinning the legs, removing the shoulders and then all the resculpting that goes along with it. Why spend the sort of money GW will charge only to totally rebuild the figure? You'd be better off buying any similar miniature and converting that, or making something from scratch. I don't get people paying so much for figures they know they'll have to completely cannibalise to 'fix' them. No wonder GW make money.

It is a tough sell for me, that's for sure.

Should open up some awesome 'counts as' opportunities for enterprising 3rd party bits/model makers though.

I'm looking forward to what they come up with!

Agree with Alpharius on this too - though I generally find 3rd-party stuff of lower design quality than GW, you'd have to be seriously incompetent to not be able to beat these designs...

 Taarnak wrote:
I'm kinda baffled by the people saying that they like the shooty Centurions better than the grindy ones. It's the same thing with a gun in place of the drill:

For me, that's because the biggest issue I have with the grindy ones is the drill. It's a thoroughly implausible close combat weapon, and looks far too unweildy underslung on the arms like that. But the same positioning looks more effective with the shooty version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
Ok I cut the inner and outer toes off the left one. Better or worse?

Worse. Makes the legs look fatter.

 catharsix wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Angry Ron wrote:
Okay, another attempt at fixing the centurions

That looks an almost implausible amount of work, you're completely hacking up the body and thinning the legs, removing the shoulders and then all the resculpting that goes along with it. Why spend the sort of money GW will charge only to totally rebuild the figure? You'd be better off buying any similar miniature and converting that, or making something from scratch. I don't get people paying so much for figures they know they'll have to completely cannibalise to 'fix' them. No wonder GW make money.

You're absolutely right. I am a conversion MANIAC - very few models escape the conversion knife in my armies (even basic troopers), but I'm not about to spend nearly the cost of a full Dreadnaught each for these fugly guys, and THEN spend a ton of time cutting them all to bits to try to make them look passable. Especially since, though I really like GW's plastic kits in general, I find them a little TOO multi-part... alot of work already goes into clipping, shaving/filing, glueing, etc. for figs that look great with no conversion work.

I saw find a better-looking more reasonably priced alternative. Or, hell, just put 3 Dreadnaughts on the Centurions' bases if you've got that much spare cash.

-C6

I'm thinking Dust Tactics KV-47s