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.

I just hope that at least ogryn get a point down. My mouth hit the floor when I saw 3 cost as much as a tank......

 tjnorwoo wrote:
I sold off 5 metal ogryns a while back and now I wish I hadn't given they may actually get some decent rules.

Unless those 'decent rules' include Toughness 5, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Anything less and they might as well not show up.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
GW remade the Leman Russ when it was already all plastic with the different variants in it, so I don't think that's a reason for them to not do it. Not convinced they will remake it, just saying the "it's already plastic" argument isn't that much of an argument.

But that made sense because the old LRBT kit was an awful design. The tracks were a complete mess with lots of extra wheels (which were not even visible once the model was finished) and no alignment for the tracks. The redesign removes the redundant parts from the sprue, makes it much easier to build, and includes the new 5th edition variant turrets. The Basilisk, on the other hand, already had that update, so the only reason to repackage it would be to add extra value to the Hydra kit. And that only benefits the customers, not GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That and the Basilisk kit isn't a complete kit. Thanks to the recut of the Chimera sprue when the last Codex came out the Basilisk is incomplete, as it's missing default parts (like the hull HB). Making a new one that includes that right parts, and wrapping it up into the Hydra kit, fixes that issue.

I seriously doubt GW is going to invest the money in making new Basilisk sprues just so they can add a HB option that hardly anyone cares about.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 tjnorwoo wrote:
I sold off 5 metal ogryns a while back and now I wish I hadn't given they may actually get some decent rules.

Unless those 'decent rules' include Toughness 5, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Anything less and they might as well not show up.

Alright that makes me feel better. Do you know if the ogryns are smaller than fantasy ogres?

 Peregrine wrote:
I seriously doubt GW is going to invest the money in making new Basilisk sprues just so they can add a HB option that hardly anyone cares about.

They wouldn't make a new Basilisk sprue. They would make a new artillery sprue that includes parts for the Basilisk (and Hydra, and anything else they can fit on).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They wouldn't make a new Basilisk sprue. They would make a new artillery sprue that includes parts for the Basilisk (and Hydra, and anything else they can fit on).

But that's the same as making a new Basilisk sprue. Look at it this way: redesigning a kit (including redesigning parts of it to fit a new hull) is almost as much work as designing a kit from scratch. So which is GW going to want to do: a redesign of the Basilisk that will probably have little impact on Basilisk sales and have zero appeal to people who already bought Basilisks, or an entirely new vehicle that everyone, including people who already own Basilisks, will want to buy? And when you answer, remember that GW already redid the Basilisk fairly recently and has work invested in making the Chimera/Basilisk/Hellhound kits, along with various FW tanks, share a lot of common parts. The obvious choice here is to keep the Basilisk kit as it is and spend their design work on making something entirely new for the Hydra, if a dual kit is going to happen at all. The only thing I would plausibly expect to see for the Basilisk is an additional sprue and price increase to include alternate gun barrels for the Medusa and Colossus.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 tjnorwoo wrote:
I sold off 5 metal ogryns a while back and now I wish I hadn't given they may actually get some decent rules.

Unless those 'decent rules' include Toughness 5, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Anything less and they might as well not show up.

You do know Ogryns already have T5?

I'm interested in the rules for those Bullgryns. ABAB, though...

But that's just it. They didn't recently redo the Basilisk. The sprues in the current Basilisk kit are the same ones they've always been. The Chimera part of the Basilisk has changed, but everything else hasn't.

To reduce the amount of sprues they produce, I can see them easily fitting a modular 'artillery' mount into the Hydra kit. Think of the Shadowsword kit. That has 6 tanks in there depending upon the amount of bits you use to make the barrel and whether or not you put a hull piece on the back. The same thing could be easily done for a bunch of arty pieces, all included with the Hydra so as to use the same open-topped back/balcony pieces.

 Dryaktylus wrote:
You do know Ogryns already have T5?

Guess that shows how much I've used Ogryn.

 RedSarge wrote:
So I take it that the once metal Ogryns are finecast now?

No idea. If they're still metal, though, it would only be due to leftover stock, since GW ceased metal production some time ago.

Might have to pick some up soon, far easier to convert.

Wouldn't it be easier to just pick up the plastic ones?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But that's just it. They didn't recently redo the Basilisk. The sprues in the current Basilisk kit are the same ones they've always been. The Chimera part of the Basilisk has changed, but everything else hasn't.

But the Basilisk-specific sprues didn't need a change. The only problem with the kit was the Chimera hull, and that problem is fixed. It's a perfectly functional kit, and redesigning it to be an alternate option for the Hydra kit doesn't make much sense when GW could just make an entirely new alternate tank for the Hydra.

The same thing could be easily done for a bunch of arty pieces, all included with the Hydra so as to use the same open-topped back/balcony pieces.

But that doesn't make much sense. The Shadowsword was designed from the beginning to be a multi-tank kit, and the only change is a few gun barrel bits. The Hydra, on the other hand, has little in common with the Basilisk or other artillery tanks, beyond being a Chimera hull. You'd need a sprue of Hydra parts (including the whole turret section), a sprue of Basilisk parts, and sprue of other artillery parts (since the Basilisk sprue is already full). It would make about as much sense as putting the Hellhound sprues in with the Hydra, since the two have about as much in common as the Basilisk and Hydra.

I think a lot of the turret bits could carry over to a basilisk. You can even see in that image, the vertical rotation is done by a mechanism very similar to a basilisk. It has a big front shield that could be a basilisk shield.

It's worth noting that the new hydra kit has an open turret section more akin to the basilisk than the FW hydra kit.

I don't necessarily think the Hydra will be a dual kit with a Basi. It seems odd they'd have the Hydra pictured next to an old Basi if they were part of dual kit. Also the guns one the Hydra look huge and would take up a large portion of a sprue all by themselves. Just saying that I could believe a Basi COULD be a dual kit with that Hydra without needing too many extra parts beyond the cannon section itself.

 Peregrine wrote:
But the Basilisk-specific sprues didn't need a change. The only problem with the kit was the Chimera hull, and that problem is fixed. It's a perfectly functional kit, and redesigning it to be an alternate option for the Hydra kit doesn't make much sense when GW could just make an entirely new alternate tank for the Hydra.

Well it does. It's incomplete and an inefficient use of plastics. The amount of blank space on there is just a complete waste given their current method of sprue production, and combining it with other tanks would mean they have one less sprue to produce each year, cutting costs.

 Peregrine wrote:
But that doesn't make much sense. The Shadowsword was designed from the beginning to be a multi-tank kit, and the only change is a few gun barrel bits. The Hydra, on the other hand, has little in common with the Basilisk or other artillery tanks, beyond being a Chimera hull. You'd need a sprue of Hydra parts (including the whole turret section), a sprue of Basilisk parts, and sprue of other artillery parts (since the Basilisk sprue is already full). It would make about as much sense as putting the Hellhound sprues in with the Hydra, since the two have about as much in common as the Basilisk and Hydra.

You're not thinking this through. The Manticore and Deathstrike contain two utterly different shapes (4 Storm Eagle rockets vs 1 Deathstrike missile), as does the Hunter and whatever the other thing in that kit is, yet the parts all work together. Having four Hydra barrels left over isn't exactly unusual - kits have weapons left over all the time - and the parts that make up the Hydra turret can run double-duty to make up the Basilisk (or whatever) parts. It's not that difficult.

IMHO it should have been a hydra/ salamander kit and then basilisk/ medusa kit can't believe they managed to stuff up the hydra that bad but there you go. What gets me is the guy who designed the knight must have been in the same room as the guy who designed the new hydra. One should still be employed at gw the other, not so much.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think a lot of the turret bits could carry over to a basilisk. You can even see in that image, the vertical rotation is done by a mechanism very similar to a basilisk. It has a big front shield that could be a basilisk shield.

The rotation bits are different, and the gun shield doesn't have the hole in the center for the Basilisk's gun. I guess in theory you could use some of those parts to make a new Basilisk design, but then you're back to the problem of spending a lot of time and money to redesign a perfectly good existing kit instead of making something new for people to buy. A re-design like that only makes sense when there are major problems with the existing kit (the old Chimera/LRBT tracks, for example), not just a minor potential gain in sprue efficiency.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Manticore and Deathstrike contain two utterly different shapes (4 Storm Eagle rockets vs 1 Deathstrike missile), as does the Hunter and whatever the other thing in that kit is, yet the parts all work together.

But that's because they were designed to work that way. If you want that kind of compatibility between the Basilisk and Hydra, if it's even possible, you'd have to completely redesign the Basilisk parts. And I can't imagine that the potential savings in a more efficient sprue design would justify having the sculptors and mold designers waste time working on minor upgrades to an existing kit (that presumably still sells at a profit) instead of making something entirely new that people can buy in addition to the current Basilisk.

And, again, there isn't anything other than wild speculation to suggest that GW is even attempting a Hydra/Basilisk combo kit.

 Red wrote:
IMHO it should have been a hydra/ salamander kit and then basilisk/ medusa kit can't believe they managed to stuff up the hydra that bad but there you go. What gets me is the guy who designed the knight must have been in the same room as the guy who designed the new hydra. One should still be employed at gw the other, not so much.

I think you might be alone in that opinion. I can't imagine why you think the Hydra is such a bad model, it looks very similar to the existing FW Hydra (and all of the art based on that kit), it's consistent with the rest of the IG vehicle designs (unlike the new transport abomination), and the open turret is similar to some real-world AA tanks.

Um most if not all modern anti air isn't open topped and the ww2 stuf that was could be loaded by the crew on the open topped vehicle. Which you can't do on this hydra. I know I'm trying to put logic into a gw tank but at least the old hydra you could stretch it to assume it had an internal magazine. All the 40k fluff on hydras has them as inclosed as well

 Red wrote:
Um most if not all modern anti air isn't open topped and the ww2 stuf that was could be loaded by the crew on the open topped vehicle. Which you can't do on this hydra. I know I'm trying to put logic into a gw tank but at least the old hydra you could stretch it to assume it had an internal magazine. All the 40k fluff on hydras has them as inclosed as well

Well yeah, but you may have noticed that IG tanks are based on WWI tanks with maybe a little WWII/modern influence in some of the details. You can nitpick about how it doesn't perfectly match the existing fluff (in a setting where there are countless different patterns of the same basic design), or isn't quite functional (like every other IG tank), but I can't see how you can reasonably claim that the new Hydra even remotely approaches "the designer should be fired".

Just my opinion I look at that kit and see an utter failure in tank and modelling design I feel that it's a kit people will buy based on rules as opposed to a nice looking kit. It's just when I look at it, it looks like little Timmy's ork conversion and not a well thought out imperial kit.

My gripe with it is by making it open topped they have instantly made it harder for the non cadian players to fit it in their army. I would have to go about converting some vostroyans to get it to fit. I am just going to spend a few £££ extra for the FW version or make an enclosed turret

 Red wrote:
Just my opinion I look at that kit and see an utter failure in tank and modelling design I feel that it's a kit people will buy based on rules as opposed to a nice looking kit. It's just when I look at it, it looks like little Timmy's ork conversion and not a well thought out imperial kit.

Are we still talking about the Hydra and not the transport? Because that's what an "utter failure" looks like. Even if the Hydra isn't exactly the perfect design that you wanted I can't see how any objective critic can call it an "utter failure".

Daston wrote:
My gripe with it is by making it open topped they have instantly made it harder for the non cadian players to fit it in their army. I would have to go about converting some vostroyans to get it to fit. I am just going to spend a few £££ extra for the FW version or make an enclosed turret

TBH converting proper DKoK for the new Hydra is one thing I'm looking forward to.

Oh, and a warning about the FW Hydra: the molds are ancient and in desperate need of a complete redo. You've probably heard the horror stories about straightening warped barrels, but the whole gun pieces are a complete mess. Edges that are supposed to be straight boxes are wavy and distorted, the two halves of the mold don't line up well, etc. If you have high standards for your models expect to spend a lot of time repairing the parts and some of it is just impossible to fix.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, again, there isn't anything other than wild speculation to suggest that GW is even attempting a Hydra/Basilisk combo kit.

Nothing much more than wild speculation on my part for a hydra/griffon kit either - I just thought it'd be nice to share my reasoning, as we're all going to find out in a few weeks anyway, and mainly my gut seems to be saying no to a basilisk being part of that kit. I could well be entirely wrong!

I'd be really pleased if they made an 'IG artillery kit' with colossus, griffon, basilisk and medusa all in one. Doesn't seem likely, especially given they already seem to have made a hydra kit... but hell maybe they're all in there?

My money's still on hydra/griffon though

Hey I know I just sound like a grumpy old nerd but like I said just my opinion. And if they are separate kits omg cause that mean they just cut and pasted bits from the current basilisk and manticore and made I whole new kit for no reason. As for the cobra snowmobile I'm not saying we aren't having a run of outs

I don't get how people can feel so strongly either way about the Hydra. It's just a Chimera with a quad gun. There's no conceivable way for that concept to turn out as anything other than strictly average.

Well, I suppose they could ruin it by plastering fleur de lis all over it for no reason, so that's one pitfall we avoided. Yay.

did anyone manage to nab the pics from the first post ? the link is borked =\

Daston wrote:
My gripe with it is by making it open topped they have instantly made it harder for the non cadian players to fit it in their army. I would have to go about converting some vostroyans to get it to fit. I am just going to spend a few £££ extra for the FW version or make an enclosed turret

TBH converting proper DKoK for the new Hydra is one thing I'm looking forward to.

 Red wrote:
Just my opinion I look at that kit and see an utter failure in tank and modelling design I feel that it's a kit people will buy based on rules as opposed to a nice looking kit. It's just when I look at it, it looks like little Timmy's ork conversion and not a well thought out imperial kit.

Can you post an example of what you would have liked it to look like?

I think the one as posted looks alright.

Okay, so I made an account just to comment on this thing that's been bugging me:

On some of the new Imperial models (the Knight, Taurox and Scions) we've been seeing these little decorative spike thingies. And for lack of a better term people have been calling them fleur-de-lis.

But they look more like a simple version of the Cross of Saint James, which itself is a kind of fitched cross / cross fitchy / croix fitchée. That being a cross with a pointed lower arm, which was a popular heraldric device during the Crusades.

(Also pics of the Scions and Taurox are still up here.)

Not going to lie, that picture of the Bullgryn with the tash... he just looks cracks me up... then you see the missile launcher and realise that any argument is invalid!

Fabio Bile wrote:
Okay, so I made an account just to comment on this thing that's been bugging me:

On some of the new Imperial models (the Knight, Taurox and Scions) we've been seeing these little decorative spike thingies. And for lack of a better term people have been calling them fleur-de-lis.

But they look more like a simple version of the Cross of Saint James, which itself is a kind of fitched cross / cross fitchy / croix fitchée. That being a cross with a pointed lower arm, which was a popular heraldric device during the Crusades.

(Also pics of the Scions and Taurox are still up here.)

Good catch. I thought there was something odd about that "Fleur de Lys."

If preorders from first page are for March 29 with release of April 5 and with this image, are there any rumors of what is comming out for preorder on 22nd with release of 29th?

What is this Apocalypse: Damocles? Rules or fiction?