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.

 Red Viper wrote:
The fight to legalize Chaos Dwarfs just took a hit.

Only for those events. Getting with the staff beforehand will likely get you an okay that you wouldn't get if you showed up the day of with it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
As for plastic Sisters, I believe they're "done" design-wise, and likely have been for a while. That is not to say that they're ready for casting, and may only now be as of Enter the Citadel (as in "have the greenlight").

Yes, this would very much tie in with what the devs have been saying previously (modelling issues prevented their release, followed by saying recently that they now have the capabilities to produce them) as well as the AS digital 'dex suddenly being a thing. Obviously the "picked up from attendees not any GW staff" part is cause for doubt on the truthfulness of this rumour, but I will note that obviously the devs themselves probably won't be saying anything further if a model update is now planned, so this is about the sort of way that we would be getting such news anyway.

 pretre wrote:

Denzark on the Bols Lounge wrote:Rumours
These were picked up from attendees not any GW staff. I cannot comment on the provenance. But, 2 main ones. Firstly, plastic T-Hawk is designed. However it currently takes 7 sprues. Apparently the problem is that the big boy kit machine can only do 6 at a time. So the sprues need rehashing to try and cram it all in to make it economical. (I know, I know...)

Tell me more, Denzark, about the 6 sprue limitation on "the big-boy machine" and how it makes a 7 sprue model impossible.

Herzlos wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I find people turning one kit into two like mangler squigs a perfectly reasonable thing to say incomplete models. I also think under-swarmed Swarms is not going to pass 'rule of cool' and is done purely for financial reasons.

What's wrong with trying to save some money whilst having no noticeable impact on the identification of your toy soldiers?

If that is how it is, I can just only assemble half a model and double my army size.

That's not really the same thing, is it? No-one is talking about fielding squads of half models, just reducing the number of models on a multi-figure base. The models are still complete and identifiable, the base is the same, there's just less models on it.

The GW HHHobby consists of "Buying GW models", obviously if you are trying to buy less models you aren't doing the HHHobby right...

 pretre wrote:

For the three people who play at WW.

Right. But you know people are going to argue that since it isn't legal at WW, it shouldn't be legal in local tournaments.

It's funny because in the Tamurakhan book it specifically says that it is a legal list and then GW leaves it off their list anyway. Good job team.

nkelsch wrote:
I find people turning one kit into two like mangler squigs a perfectly reasonable thing to say incomplete models. I also think under-swarmed Swarms is not going to pass 'rule of cool' and is done purely for financial reasons.

I agree with the latter, but not at all with the former. I think the Mangler Squigs look substantially better split and the way they modelled them was a really poor decision. The default posing looks terrible but individually they look awesome. I get that making it shorter screws up the rules so is a problem but I don't think it's fair to declare bad faith or being cheap on that.

 Red Viper wrote:

 pretre wrote:

For the three people who play at WW.

Right. But you know people are going to argue that since it isn't legal at WW, it shouldn't be legal in local tournaments.

It's funny because in the Tamurakhan book it specifically says that it is a legal list and then GW leaves it off their list anyway. Good job team.

Except that their inclusion is only for GW events, not for everything. And we all know by know that GW events are about as proof as what is legal in normal games or local tournaments as whatever they do at NOVA or Adepticon. That is to say, not at all.

The solution to the "it can only stamp 6 and not 7" is very easy.

Stamp out 6 runs of the 6 sprues and then make the 7th run all of the 7th sprue.

It's magic.

 TalonZahn wrote:
The solution to the "it can only stamp 6 and not 7" is very easy.

Stamp out 6 runs of the 6 sprues and then make the 7th run all of the 7th sprue.

It's magic.

This would be horribly inefficient as a manufacturing process. But anyway, this is obviously BS as the Baneblade has 7 sprues.

-Shrike- wrote:

 TalonZahn wrote:
The solution to the "it can only stamp 6 and not 7" is very easy.

Stamp out 6 runs of the 6 sprues and then make the 7th run all of the 7th sprue.

It's magic.

This would be horribly inefficient as a manufacturing process. But anyway, this is obviously BS as the Baneblade has 7 sprues.

Is that the current Baneblade kit that is a combination of 2 kits instead of 1? I think the old one was like 4-5 sprues.

Moving on from that, it might have been speculation, or maybe the sprues are larger than we're thinking of. I don't know. Apparently there is some credence to the idea that they need to reduce the number of sprues in the kit as it's come up in the batch of rumors that BoLS has had submitted to them.

Wait now GW is telling us how to model thier products?

 5deadly wrote:
Wait now GW is telling us how to model thier products?

No, read the thread.

 pretre wrote:

 5deadly wrote:
Wait now GW is telling us how to model thier products?

No, read the thread.

Better yet, read the actual Warrior's Code (link is in the first post).

The original Baneblade kit was indeed 7 sprues.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The original Baneblade kit was indeed 7 sprues.

Ah, okay. Thought it was less for some reason.

Who knows, maybe the T-Hawk sprues are even bigger? I recall that the sprues for my Stormlord are actually paired around a centerline that was where the plastic was injected from. Could it be possible that instead of that, they're larger, single sprues instead?

I don't know. I'm speculating here.

The thunderhawk is the ugliest model GW/Forge World has ever made. You could just glue to bricks together long ways and add wings and it would look better. I want a Warhound titan.

Now that would be something. With the Dreamforge Leviathan Mortis just released in plastic it shows that a titan can be done in plastic. Even if its $200 I'd buy one. And then they could sell the arms seperately and make more money.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Again: Are there any GW tournaments left except the one in Nottingham's Warhammer World?
I thought GW axed them all.

nkelsch wrote:
. The description fails 'rule of cool'.

The description is vague, aside from it being a "big ugly speeder" which suggests that it was more than a standard speeder with some lascannon glued haphazardly to it. Its perfectly possible to use the landspeeder model as the basis of a large skimmer with the same footprint and armament of a predator. It would take a lot of work but it is possible and as such it shoudn't be discounted out of hand as an attempt to gain some kind of advantage given that wargaming is supposed to be a creative hobby.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Again: Are there any GW tournaments left except the one in Nottingham's Warhammer World?
I thought GW axed them all.

Don't know, and I don't think it honestly matters, the rules are only for Warhammer World events anyways.

Think you guys are missing the point. The issue is with production capacity. If they have to do multiple runs, that's even more machine time (and money) dedicated to making a single kit, during which time they aren't making other kits. My understanding is that those machines run all day long as is, so they'd need a pretty significant "hole" in the production schedule to pull that off.

IMO, that's the real reason to be skeptical about a plastic Thunderhawk -- when are they going to produce it given this accelerated release schedule?

 gorgon wrote:
Think you guys are missing the point. The issue is with production capacity. If they have to do multiple runs, that's even more machine time (and money) dedicated to making a single kit, during which time they aren't making other kits. My understanding is that those machines run all day long as is, so they'd need a pretty significant "hole" in the production schedule to pull that off.

IMO, that's the real reason to be skeptical about a plastic Thunderhawk -- when are they going to produce it given this accelerated release schedule?

Actually we're not missing the point when the machine is a large machine used soley for making these oversized super heavy kits. The only negative impact it would have is on the super heavy kits which don't sell nearly as fast as everything else does.

It could be as simple as they think the kit would make (enough) money if it was on 6 (or fewer sprues)

but not make enough if it has to be on 7 just because of the extra costs of tooling, and the extra time taken to produce them all

 Tamwulf wrote:

- If there is a model for it, you must use it. This concerns me a little as I like to use a lot of the Blood Angels bits/models for my Blood Ravens army. Does this mean that even if my Blood Ravens are painted up as Blood Ravens with Blood Angels bits, I'll be forced to play a Blood Angels list?!?!

I'm in a very similar position, except I happen to use a load of Dark Angels bits all over my army as well. And, god forbid I want to field my Blood Ravens 1st Company ever again either...

Even reading the actual document, I'd still be very wary turning up at Warhammer World with my Blood Ravens again. In fact, a mate tried to talk me into going to the final part of the Vidars Fate campaign. I turned him down and now I'm very glad I did.

This isn't just affecting Throne of Skulls, there's literally an event on every 2 weeks at Warhammer World.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Think you guys are missing the point. The issue is with production capacity. If they have to do multiple runs, that's even more machine time (and money) dedicated to making a single kit, during which time they aren't making other kits. My understanding is that those machines run all day long as is, so they'd need a pretty significant "hole" in the production schedule to pull that off.

IMO, that's the real reason to be skeptical about a plastic Thunderhawk -- when are they going to produce it given this accelerated release schedule?

Actually we're not missing the point when the machine is a large machine used soley for making these oversized super heavy kits. The only negative impact it would have is on the super heavy kits which don't sell nearly as fast as everything else does.

They still produce other large kits, and just about every army release is getting one. Production capacity is never free.

And you don't think two runs versus one run makes any difference to a company that's as protective of their margins as GW?

Carry on then, I guess. *shrug*

 Compel wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

- If there is a model for it, you must use it. This concerns me a little as I like to use a lot of the Blood Angels bits/models for my Blood Ravens army. Does this mean that even if my Blood Ravens are painted up as Blood Ravens with Blood Angels bits, I'll be forced to play a Blood Angels list?!?!

I'm in a very similar position, except I happen to use a load of Dark Angels bits all over my army as well. And, god forbid I want to field my Blood Ravens 1st Company ever again either...

Even reading the actual document, I'd still be very wary turning up at Warhammer World with my Blood Ravens again. In fact, a mate tried to talk me into going to the final part of the Vidars Fate campaign. I turned him down and now I'm very glad I did.

This isn't just affecting Throne of Skulls, there's literally an event on every 2 weeks at Warhammer World.

What part of the document said anything about paint scheme or chapter having to match the rules you are using?

 pretre wrote:

 Compel wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

- If there is a model for it, you must use it. This concerns me a little as I like to use a lot of the Blood Angels bits/models for my Blood Ravens army. Does this mean that even if my Blood Ravens are painted up as Blood Ravens with Blood Angels bits, I'll be forced to play a Blood Angels list?!?!

I'm in a very similar position, except I happen to use a load of Dark Angels bits all over my army as well. And, god forbid I want to field my Blood Ravens 1st Company ever again either...

Even reading the actual document, I'd still be very wary turning up at Warhammer World with my Blood Ravens again. In fact, a mate tried to talk me into going to the final part of the Vidars Fate campaign. I turned him down and now I'm very glad I did.

This isn't just affecting Throne of Skulls, there's literally an event on every 2 weeks at Warhammer World.

What part of the document said anything about paint scheme or chapter having to match the rules you are using?

Nothing, but I'm suspecting it's not entirely relevant what the PDF says as going by what was originally reported the judges were being somewhat "open" in their interpretation of this document with the quote in the OP regarding DP doors and the White Scar army for example, neither situations are mentioned in the PDF yet both were (apparently) being enforced by the judges present.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nothing, but I'm suspecting it's not entirely relevant what the PDF says as going by what was originally reported the judges were being somewhat "open" in their interpretation of this document with the quote in the OP regarding DP doors and the White Scar army for example, neither situations are mentioned in the PDF yet both were (apparently) being enforced by the judges present.

Allegedly. This from the guy who says a Plastic Thunderhawk is coming...

-Shrike- wrote:
This would be horribly inefficient as a manufacturing process. But anyway, this is obviously BS as the Baneblade has 7 sprues.

I know.

It would be like switching the material you manufacture in and then switch back a couple years later.

Oh wait.....

nkelsch wrote:
No Proxies: Reasonable - A Landspeeder is not a Predator. It is not a clever conversion, it is not a cool 'Counts as' it fails rule of cool. It is someone turning starter box trash into 'coke can' proxies.

Well...

I mean I'd be ok with that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
No Proxies: Reasonable - A Landspeeder is not a Predator. It is not a clever conversion, it is not a cool 'Counts as' it fails rule of cool. It is someone turning starter box trash into 'coke can' proxies.

Well...

I mean I'd be ok with that.

Eh, depends on how they solve the missing turrent problem. But it's a start!