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.

Mmmm, not really no.

No quote and vague reply. 3/10.

 pretre wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Even to a complete fluff-bunny beer n pretzels pleeb, the unit is literally useless on the tabletop if your opponent isn't bringing air.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Enlighten me.

Considering it has other uses other than just against air, it is not literally useless. It is perhaps not the best or most effective choice but it still has uses.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Mmmm, not really no.

Hmm is this thread about the new IG release or just for members sniping at each other? I suspect the page count is approaching the point where useful debate and conversation starts to fall off

 ironicsilence wrote:
Hmm is this thread about the new IG release or just for members sniping at each other? I suspect the page count is approaching the point where useful debate and conversation starts to fall off

Well, as quoted, we were discussing the Hydra that is being released, so still slightly on topic.

I assume the Hydra will get the Interceptor rule, otherwise it's a relatively useless vehicle. Given the Aegis Quad Gun is basically just a Hydra gun with Interceptor and a shorter range, I think the Hydra will also get Interceptor.

I imagine the reason they didn't want to give the Hydra the Interceptor rule previously is that at 75pts it would be underpriced and no one would consider autocannons that didn't come on a Hydra.

I really doubt that they will add interceptor to it.

Why's that?

Seems like a prime candidate for Interceptor and a price hike.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why's that?

Seems like a prime candidate for Interceptor and a price hike.

Because it is easier to just re-release it with the same rules. 'If it ain't broke...'

I keep hearing about the possible basilisk dual kit, however, I see several obvious differences in the picture. First (not arrowed) is the lip on the AA gun, then the hatch (round vs square), then a double plate on the front vs no double on the basilisk (where front sloped meets top near hatch), the windows in front look different, etc... Unless they are throwing a new sprue with new top section into basilisk kit, that'd be the only way I think they are going to do it. NO revamped basilisk, just a new sprue tossed in to make it a dual kit.... IMHO.

 pretre wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why's that?

Seems like a prime candidate for Interceptor and a price hike.

Because it is easier to just re-release it with the same rules. 'If it ain't broke...'

But it kind of is broke, lol.

If the hybra does in fact get a new model, I'd expect it gets the interceptor rule and a point cost increase. GW generally isnt in the habit of putting out a new model with rules that dont make you want to take it

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 pretre wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why's that?

Seems like a prime candidate for Interceptor and a price hike.

Because it is easier to just re-release it with the same rules. 'If it ain't broke...'

But it kind of is broke, lol.

Just because something isn't the most competitive, doesn't mean it is broken. Also, GW rarely makes rules changes based on community opinion.

 ironicsilence wrote:
If the hybra does in fact get a new model, I'd expect it gets the interceptor rule and a point cost increase. GW generally isnt in the habit of putting out a new model with rules that dont make you want to take it

Mutilators, Warp Talons, Nephilim/DarkTalon, Blood Throne, etc.

 ironicsilence wrote:
If the hybra does in fact get a new model, I'd expect it gets the interceptor rule and a point cost increase. GW generally isnt in the habit of putting out a new model with rules that dont make you want to take it

Like pyrovores, mandrakes, and helbrutes? I'm certain there are a few others.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Unless they are throwing a new sprue with new top section into basilisk kit, that'd be the only way I think they are going to do it. NO revamped basilisk, just a new sprue tossed in to make it a dual kit.... IMHO.

I don't think that will happen. If they have to throw in an extra sprue, it makes more sense just to release another kit, otherwise they're throwing away a sprue with each kit.

GW doesn't make dual kits for our benefit, they do it because it's minimal extra cost to them as long as the parts required to make both kits can all fit on the same sprue. If they start having to throw in an extra sprue I think they'd see it as being better to just sell 2 kits so they don't have to manufacture as many sprues.

 pretre wrote:

 Balance wrote:
For the Ogryns, the fact that apparently there's what appears to be manufactured armor with mounting brackets for tread-links seems a bit silly. Using spare links as 'improvised armor' on tanks is kind of neat, maybe as a shoulder-guard on an Ogryn, but having it as a part of what appears to be manufactured armor seems a bit silly.

It is quite possible that the tank treads fitting onto the breast plate is a happy coincidence. We really have no way of knowing if that is (in universe) intentional or not.

That's reasonable. I'm not really int he market for these anyway, but I kind of prefer the older look where it was clear that there wasn't a lot of thought to making these abhumans comfortable, so the uniforms looked thrown-together and ill-fitting.

 pretre wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 pretre wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Why's that?

Seems like a prime candidate for Interceptor and a price hike.

Because it is easier to just re-release it with the same rules. 'If it ain't broke...'

But it kind of is broke, lol.

Just because something isn't the most competitive, doesn't mean it is broken. Also, GW rarely makes rules changes based on community opinion.

poor balance = broken balance = broken.

Also, it wasn't just "community opinion", it was based off the fact it seems that functionally a Hydra and a Quad Gun should be the same (4 TL AC shots with Skyfire and Interceptor). IMO the reason the Hydra wasn't made Interceptor at the beginning of 6th is simply that with Interceptor, it's worth more than 75pts.

Bah, letting it go so we can get back on topic.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
I keep hearing about the possible basilisk dual kit, however, I see several obvious differences in the picture. First (not arrowed) is the lip on the AA gun, then the hatch (round vs square), then a double plate on the front vs no double on the basilisk (where front sloped meets top near hatch), the windows in front look different, etc... Unless they are throwing a new sprue with new top section into basilisk kit, that'd be the only way I think they are going to do it. NO revamped basilisk, just a new sprue tossed in to make it a dual kit.... IMHO.

Not even. That hatch is the old accessory sprue hatch, and the sides of the vehicle jut out more than they do on a modern Chimera chassis. That's an old model.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Unless they are throwing a new sprue with new top section into basilisk kit, that'd be the only way I think they are going to do it. NO revamped basilisk, just a new sprue tossed in to make it a dual kit.... IMHO.

I don't think that will happen. If they have to throw in an extra sprue, it makes more sense just to release another kit, otherwise they're throwing away a sprue with each kit.

GW doesn't make dual kits for our benefit, they do it because it's minimal extra cost to them as long as the parts required to make both kits can all fit on the same sprue. If they start having to throw in an extra sprue I think they'd see it as being better to just sell 2 kits so they don't have to manufacture as many sprues.

Wait, wuh?

That whole statement you mde was full of contradictions... If GW wants to SAVE money for themselves (i.e. NOT make a whole new kit), just make an additional sprue to make hydras from basilisk kit, then raise the price of the now "dual" kit by 20% (or more, because I wasn't suggesting they'd just toss in another sprue free after all), GW has a win-win for themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother SRM wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
I keep hearing about the possible basilisk dual kit, however, I see several obvious differences in the picture. First (not arrowed) is the lip on the AA gun, then the hatch (round vs square), then a double plate on the front vs no double on the basilisk (where front sloped meets top near hatch), the windows in front look different, etc... Unless they are throwing a new sprue with new top section into basilisk kit, that'd be the only way I think they are going to do it. NO revamped basilisk, just a new sprue tossed in to make it a dual kit.... IMHO.

Not even. That hatch is the old accessory sprue hatch, and the sides of the vehicle jut out more than they do on a modern Chimera chassis. That's an old model.

That's what I am saying, they are not redoing the basilisk. Either there is a completely new kit (hydra). OR the photo having a basilisk in background has NO bearing on the Hydra. Or the hydra & old basilisk are a new dual kit, and GW just added a sprue and raised price. Lot's of possible answers.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Unless they are throwing a new sprue with new top section into basilisk kit, that'd be the only way I think they are going to do it. NO revamped basilisk, just a new sprue tossed in to make it a dual kit.... IMHO.

I don't think that will happen. If they have to throw in an extra sprue, it makes more sense just to release another kit, otherwise they're throwing away a sprue with each kit.

GW doesn't make dual kits for our benefit, they do it because it's minimal extra cost to them as long as the parts required to make both kits can all fit on the same sprue. If they start having to throw in an extra sprue I think they'd see it as being better to just sell 2 kits so they don't have to manufacture as many sprues.

Wait, wuh?

That whole statement you mde was full of contradictions... If GW wants to SAVE money for themselves (i.e. NOT make a whole new kit), just make an additional sprue to make hydras from basilisk kit, then raise the price of the now "dual" kit by 20% (or more, because I wasn't suggesting they'd just toss in another sprue free after all), GW has a win-win for themselves.

Well, yes, they could raise the price above and beyond the existing IG tanks to compensate... but I don't think they'll do that. The only dual kit I know of that does what you're suggesting is the Baneblade. All other dual kits are dual kits because all the parts required for both variants fits on a single sprue.

OR the photo having a basilisk in background has NO bearing on the Hydra.

I think this is the most likely given the Basi in the picture is an old model. I never even considered that being in the same picture was the reason people were thinking it might be a dual kit until you mentioned it. Far more likely it's just a coincidence. It's clearly not the same hull on the Basi, so even if it is a dual kit, the Basi in the picture is not the one that's part of the dual kit which would be extremely odd. There's also a Leman Russ in the picture, maybe GW are making a tri-kit, Hydra-Basi-Leman Russ

Oh my god. The photo has guardsmen in it so maybe it's a dual Hydra/guard platoon box

Seriously can we just leave this now

 ironicsilence wrote:
If the hybra does in fact get a new model, I'd expect it gets the interceptor rule and a point cost increase. GW generally isnt in the habit of putting out a new model with rules that dont make you want to take it

Actually, GW pulls this all the time. More in WFB than in 40k,. Some are still nice models and sell because someone wants to paint them. Others come out, customers barely look at them and forget they exist, and after 6 months I dump them on ebay at half off to get some money back out of them.

Now, it didn't used to be this way. New models generally had rules that made you want to play with them. Customers were glad to pay money, retailers and GW both made money. Win/win/win.

It's one of the great mysteries of GW now, the way they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don't see the Hydra gaining interceptor. The last 2 space marine vehicles are in the same price range and didn't come with interceptor.

Compared to the stalker the Hydra gives up 1 BS, the ability to split into 8 bs2 shots, and has 10 AV side armor instead of AV12 to gain a heavy bolter/flamer and ignore jink saves.

This is just my gut instinct, but I think the hydra is going to be downgraded to an open topped vehicle and go down significantly in price. At 50 points a pop I think they would be worthwhile under the current hydra rules + open topped.

 schadenfreude wrote:
This is just my gut instinct, but I think the hydra is going to be downgraded to an open topped vehicle and go down significantly in price. At 50 points a pop I think they would be worthwhile under the current hydra rules + open topped.

That seems likely, although I'd say at 50 points apiece they would be an absolute bargain.

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
This is just my gut instinct, but I think the hydra is going to be downgraded to an open topped vehicle and go down significantly in price. At 50 points a pop I think they would be worthwhile under the current hydra rules + open topped.

That seems likely, although I'd say at 50 points apiece they would be an absolute bargain.

An absolute bargain would inspire sales which will otherwise be anemic for the Hydra if it's not a bargain. The hydra is after all in a very crowded and competitive force org slot for IG.

Open topped is probably worth 15 points on a 12/10/10 vehicle. That would drop it 10 points under a SM version that has 12 side armor, 8 shot split fire, and a higher bs in return for no jink and the hull mounted heavy weapon.

 Bull0 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
You know GW tried to charge £15 for one plastic librarian last summer, right?

And succeeded!

Not with me they didn't. That was the one that really turned me off. But yeah, I guess people bought it. Nice enough model.

They are still asking £24 for the shokk attack gun big mek, and $40 in the US. At least your model has utility!

 BunkerBob wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
You know GW tried to charge £15 for one plastic librarian last summer, right?

And succeeded!

Not with me they didn't. That was the one that really turned me off. But yeah, I guess people bought it. Nice enough model.

They are still asking £24 for the shokk attack gun big mek, and $40 in the US. At least your model has utility!

Peasha if you where a real ork you would make your own for less then 5$

Has anyone else been making lists with the supposed rule changes in the rumor mill? Sadly I've made about 14 new lists under those proposed limitations. I've done about 15 or so rolls on gets hot for veterans using the rumor of loosing one special heavy weapon and honestly I am not loosing much as everything has been consistent on the rolls. Then the average was instantly skewed due to constant 1's. Such is my luck.

 mikhaila wrote:
It's one of the great mysteries of GW now, the way they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Not a mystery at all: How should the GW decision makers know which rules are good, as they don't have a clue about the products they sell (and can't lower themselves to actually play it)