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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'd say that I sincerely hope they don't get 40K rules, but at this point who cares, GW are doing a fine job of homogenising 40K with too many elements of its own past anyway.

Usually the Marine stuff gets 40k rules but nothing else sadly.

Eh, for my money it's not sadly, I like my 40K backwards & regressive and would really prefer almost all the 30K stuff stay in 30K. But like I say, actually arguing that view these days is getting into Knut territory, since now 40K has nuMarines and grav Raiders and Primarchs strutting about the place, so why not just make it a free-for-all.

I want 40k rules for them since I love the models that FW puts out but can't stand the abomination that is the 6th/7th ruleset. If they have 40k rules you can always pretend that they don't exist, after all...

Guessing that preview image means no hidden surprise reveals of models? :( Cam aaan I want something for 40k. Heck I'll even take something for Space Marines if it's usable by my Deathwatch.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'd say that I sincerely hope they don't get 40K rules, but at this point who cares, GW are doing a fine job of homogenising 40K with too many elements of its own past anyway.

Usually the Marine stuff gets 40k rules but nothing else sadly.

Eh, for my money it's not sadly, I like my 40K backwards & regressive and would really prefer almost all the 30K stuff stay in 30K. But like I say, actually arguing that view these days is getting into Knut territory, since now 40K has nuMarines and grav Raiders and Primarchs strutting about the place, so why not just make it a free-for-all.

I want 40k rules for them since I love the models that FW puts out but can't stand the abomination that is the 6th/7th ruleset. If they have 40k rules you can always pretend that they don't exist, after all...

That's the great thing about FW/HH 7th rules. They pretty much got rid of most of the most grevious offenders that broke 6/7th. The campaign system that Alan an the team came up with is fantastic....the bad thing is even with HH games most people still want to play " kill'em all last man standing games"...which is a shame.

That flyer is just fantastic, just fething fantastic. I've really dug the custodes vibe, the only problem with the models is they don't have capes.... I would of jumped on the custodes models if they had capes, oh well Mechanicum it is. FW still got me now I want God Machines and lots of God Machines, I just need to win the lotto to make my dream 30k army come true muahhahahah

I do like the custodes terminators but it's a shame you can't use them in 40k, I feel those flamers would be monsters.

 Gamgee wrote:
The Oiron looks fantastic and is easily up there as one of my fav ships now. FW "gets" flyers so much better than GW for the most part barring the Valkyrie/Corvus.

And it's no coincidence that the Valkyrie was a FW kit that was converted into plastic, not a GW original design. The FW flyers, especially Imperial flyers, are just plain better than any of the awful plastic designs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
The Oiron looks fantastic and is easily up there as one of my fav ships now. FW "gets" flyers so much better than GW for the most part barring the Valkyrie/Corvus.

And it's no coincidence that the Valkyrie was a FW kit that was converted into plastic, not a GW original design. The FW flyers, especially Imperial flyers, are just plain better than any of the awful plastic designs.

I like the Corvus Blackstar but other than that I agree.

IFC_Casting wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
The Oiron looks fantastic and is easily up there as one of my fav ships now. FW "gets" flyers so much better than GW for the most part barring the Valkyrie/Corvus.

And it's no coincidence that the Valkyrie was a FW kit that was converted into plastic, not a GW original design. The FW flyers, especially Imperial flyers, are just plain better than any of the awful plastic designs.

I like the Corvus Blackstar but other than that I agree.

I agree, I like the blackstar ( but then again I am a sucker for the Cheyenne drop ship from aliens), but FW flies are superior because you can do so much more in resin then plastic... and Tony and the boys don't have management breathing down their necks. They can just do their own thing

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

IFC_Casting wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
The Oiron looks fantastic and is easily up there as one of my fav ships now. FW "gets" flyers so much better than GW for the most part barring the Valkyrie/Corvus.

And it's no coincidence that the Valkyrie was a FW kit that was converted into plastic, not a GW original design. The FW flyers, especially Imperial flyers, are just plain better than any of the awful plastic designs.

I like the Corvus Blackstar but other than that I agree.

I agree, I like the blackstar ( but then again I am a sucker for the Cheyenne drop ship from aliens), but FW flies are superior because you can do so much more in resin then plastic... and Tony and the boys don't have management breathing down their necks. They can just do their own thing

I'm quite a big fan of FW myself, I look forward to all the amazing stuff that comes out when the Horus Heresy eventually slows down. (In like a decade.)

I'm grabbing three Barracuda's this year thanks to the low pound and recovering cad and if they would put the damn Tigershark remake up that too. My weakness. Also I was so tempted to grab three more Ta'unar for the lols but eh priorities. I have one for now with some of the options.

 Gamgee wrote:
I'm grabbing three Barracuda's this year thanks to the low pound and recovering cad and if they would put the damn Tigershark remake up that too. My weakness. Also I was so tempted to grab three more Ta'unar for the lols but eh priorities. I have one for now with some of the options.

I hope so, because it will be released with Fires of Cyraxis.

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I want 40k rules for them since I love the models that FW puts out but can't stand the abomination that is the 6th/7th ruleset. If they have 40k rules you can always pretend that they don't exist, after all...

That's the great thing about FW/HH 7th rules. They pretty much got rid of most of the most grevious offenders that broke 6/7th. The campaign system that Alan an the team came up with is fantastic....the bad thing is even with HH games most people still want to play " kill'em all last man standing games"...which is a shame.

I totally get that - it's just that I want to be able to play "outside the box" of both the HH and the 41st Millennium. Another poster mentioned it before - I enjoy the sandbox aspect of 40k to be playing in different eras, so I'm much happier being able to play with Custodes or Mechanicum versus Eldar or Orks or Necrons or... rather than just the Marine vs Marine (+Auxilia & Mechanicum) of 30k/HH. I don't put much stock in restricting a game with this much breadth and depth based around what might happen in pick up games in stores against strangers.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'd say that I sincerely hope they don't get 40K rules, but at this point who cares, GW are doing a fine job of homogenising 40K with too many elements of its own past anyway.

Usually the Marine stuff gets 40k rules but nothing else sadly.

Eh, for my money it's not sadly, I like my 40K backwards & regressive and would really prefer almost all the 30K stuff stay in 30K. But like I say, actually arguing that view these days is getting into Knut territory, since now 40K has nuMarines and grav Raiders and Primarchs strutting about the place, so why not just make it a free-for-all.

I want 40k rules for them since I love the models that FW puts out but can't stand the abomination that is the 6th/7th ruleset. If they have 40k rules you can always pretend that they don't exist, after all...

Well, no, you can't, because showing up to a pickup game and asking someone else to tailor their army to remove things you don't like is a really rapid shortcut to packing up your models and heading home.

As I say, fighting it is pointless at this stage since GW evidently aren't interested and plenty of folk don't care, I just think it's a shame that GW would rather go with the zero-effort free for all method than actually manage the way the rules relate to the IP.

 Azazelx wrote:

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I want 40k rules for them since I love the models that FW puts out but can't stand the abomination that is the 6th/7th ruleset. If they have 40k rules you can always pretend that they don't exist, after all...

That's the great thing about FW/HH 7th rules. They pretty much got rid of most of the most grevious offenders that broke 6/7th. The campaign system that Alan an the team came up with is fantastic....the bad thing is even with HH games most people still want to play " kill'em all last man standing games"...which is a shame.

I totally get that - it's just that I want to be able to play "outside the box" of both the HH and the 41st Millennium. Another poster mentioned it before - I enjoy the sandbox aspect of 40k to be playing in different eras, so I'm much happier being able to play with Custodes or Mechanicum versus Eldar or Orks or Necrons or... rather than just the Marine vs Marine (+Auxilia & Mechanicum) of 30k/HH. I don't put much stock in restricting a game with this much breadth and depth based around what might happen in pick up games in stores against strangers.

Though I do find this attitude a bit odd, since that's how most people end up gaming from what I can see. Even at larger clubs a lot of games end up being pickup games against people you don't or barely know. But then, again, GW share your view and evidently intend to continue running the system based on the "chaps' agreement" school, so it's a pointless argument

What's the big deal about having rules for both versions of the game?

IMO the HH should never have dropped 6th edition.

Matt Ward did actually make a good rule book (i concede, still with imperfections) which did actually achieve what it set out to do; create a more 'cinematic' feel to your game without making it take all day.




That plasma-type sicarian is a bit much for me, too t'au-like at the back of the weapon.

Perhaps the Tau got their technological leg up by discovering some heresy-era wreckage on their homeworld or moon?

Shades of Babylon 5 there, but it works as a bit of headcanon if you think some of the Imperial models look "too Tau".

"Chapter Homeworld"

So, any bets we will hear anything about fYres of Cyraxus? Not counting the 2 year old slides?

Custodian flyer looks amazing. As well as terminators... 19 quid per model

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I totally get that - it's just that I want to be able to play "outside the box" of both the HH and the 41st Millennium. Another poster mentioned it before - I enjoy the sandbox aspect of 40k to be playing in different eras, so I'm much happier being able to play with Custodes or Mechanicum versus Eldar or Orks or Necrons or... rather than just the Marine vs Marine (+Auxilia & Mechanicum) of 30k/HH. I don't put much stock in restricting a game with this much breadth and depth based around what might happen in pick up games in stores against strangers.

Though I do find this attitude a bit odd, since that's how most people end up gaming from what I can see. Even at larger clubs a lot of games end up being pickup games against people you don't or barely know. But then, again, GW share your view and evidently intend to continue running the system based on the "chaps' agreement" school, so it's a pointless argument

If GW shared my view, we'd have 40k 8th rules for all the Mechanicum stuff, all the Custodes stuff... and so on. We actually have a middle ground that lies somewhere between what you would like and what I would like, leaving neither of us completely satisfied. I thought you were sticking with 7th anyway? HH rules pretty much port straight over with a minimum of fuss. Why do you suddenly care about what they're doing with 8th.

I also love the "this is what I perceive people around me doing and read about others doing it this way on the internet so therefore it's the majority of people in the world" argument. That one never gets old. When I used to play in store regularly and even in clubs I primarily played with friends and through the process made new ones. Friends are able to discuss and negotiate things with one another. Seems to work pretty well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's the big deal about having rules for both versions of the game?

Evidently some people don't like others being able to play in a way that's different to the way they like to play. Because some random in a store PUG who you may never play against or even see again probably won't agree to removing his Custodes tank because "you" (generalised you) don't like Custodes tanks being in 40k because they violate "your" head-canon in some manner.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I totally get that - it's just that I want to be able to play "outside the box" of both the HH and the 41st Millennium. Another poster mentioned it before - I enjoy the sandbox aspect of 40k to be playing in different eras, so I'm much happier being able to play with Custodes or Mechanicum versus Eldar or Orks or Necrons or... rather than just the Marine vs Marine (+Auxilia & Mechanicum) of 30k/HH. I don't put much stock in restricting a game with this much breadth and depth based around what might happen in pick up games in stores against strangers.

Though I do find this attitude a bit odd, since that's how most people end up gaming from what I can see. Even at larger clubs a lot of games end up being pickup games against people you don't or barely know. But then, again, GW share your view and evidently intend to continue running the system based on the "chaps' agreement" school, so it's a pointless argument

If GW shared my view, we'd have 40k 8th rules for all the Mechanicum stuff, all the Custodes stuff... and so on. We actually have a middle ground that lies somewhere between what you would like and what I would like, leaving neither of us completely satisfied. I thought you were sticking with 7th anyway? HH rules pretty much port straight over with a minimum of fuss. Why do you suddenly care about what they're doing with 8th.

I also love the "this is what I perceive people around me doing and read about others doing it this way on the internet so therefore it's the majority of people in the world" argument. That one never gets old. When I used to play in store regularly and even in clubs I primarily played with friends and through the process made new ones. Friends are able to discuss and negotiate things with one another. Seems to work pretty well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's the big deal about having rules for both versions of the game?

Evidently some people don't like others being able to play in a way that's different to the way they like to play. Because some random in a store PUG who you may never play against or even see again probably won't agree to removing his Custodes tank because "you" (generalised you) don't like Custodes tanks being in 40k because they violate "your" head-canon in some manner.

Thankfully we have the warp to explain away such time travel shenanigans.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I totally get that - it's just that I want to be able to play "outside the box" of both the HH and the 41st Millennium. Another poster mentioned it before - I enjoy the sandbox aspect of 40k to be playing in different eras, so I'm much happier being able to play with Custodes or Mechanicum versus Eldar or Orks or Necrons or... rather than just the Marine vs Marine (+Auxilia & Mechanicum) of 30k/HH. I don't put much stock in restricting a game with this much breadth and depth based around what might happen in pick up games in stores against strangers.

Though I do find this attitude a bit odd, since that's how most people end up gaming from what I can see. Even at larger clubs a lot of games end up being pickup games against people you don't or barely know. But then, again, GW share your view and evidently intend to continue running the system based on the "chaps' agreement" school, so it's a pointless argument

If GW shared my view, we'd have 40k 8th rules for all the Mechanicum stuff, all the Custodes stuff... and so on. We actually have a middle ground that lies somewhere between what you would like and what I would like, leaving neither of us completely satisfied. I thought you were sticking with 7th anyway? HH rules pretty much port straight over with a minimum of fuss. Why do you suddenly care about what they're doing with 8th.

I also love the "this is what I perceive people around me doing and read about others doing it this way on the internet so therefore it's the majority of people in the world" argument. That one never gets old. When I used to play in store regularly and even in clubs I primarily played with friends and through the process made new ones. Friends are able to discuss and negotiate things with one another. Seems to work pretty well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's the big deal about having rules for both versions of the game?

Evidently some people don't like others being able to play in a way that's different to the way they like to play. Because some random in a store PUG who you may never play against or even see again probably won't agree to removing his Custodes tank because "you" (generalised you) don't like Custodes tanks being in 40k because they violate "your" head-canon in some manner.

It's a total drag. I'd be buying one or two of everything Custodes that FW has dropped if they had 40k rules. They're gorgeous models, but cost way too much for me to buy that much for just display purposes. If I'm gonna spend mad coin on little resin men, I've gotta be able to push them around the table at least a couple times.

 Prometheum5 wrote:


[SNIP MULTI-QUOTE]

It's a total drag. I'd be buying one or two of everything Custodes that FW has dropped if they had 40k rules. They're gorgeous models, but cost way too much for me to buy that much for just display purposes. If I'm gonna spend mad coin on little resin men, I've gotta be able to push them around the table at least a couple times.

I'm in the same boat - I even have an Achillus, Galatus and Coronus - but I only play 30K once or twice a year while I play 40K once or twice a week. I can't really justify the cost of more Custodes models without being able to get regular use out of them.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

I totally get that - it's just that I want to be able to play "outside the box" of both the HH and the 41st Millennium. Another poster mentioned it before - I enjoy the sandbox aspect of 40k to be playing in different eras, so I'm much happier being able to play with Custodes or Mechanicum versus Eldar or Orks or Necrons or... rather than just the Marine vs Marine (+Auxilia & Mechanicum) of 30k/HH. I don't put much stock in restricting a game with this much breadth and depth based around what might happen in pick up games in stores against strangers.

Though I do find this attitude a bit odd, since that's how most people end up gaming from what I can see. Even at larger clubs a lot of games end up being pickup games against people you don't or barely know. But then, again, GW share your view and evidently intend to continue running the system based on the "chaps' agreement" school, so it's a pointless argument

If GW shared my view, we'd have 40k 8th rules for all the Mechanicum stuff, all the Custodes stuff... and so on. We actually have a middle ground that lies somewhere between what you would like and what I would like, leaving neither of us completely satisfied. I thought you were sticking with 7th anyway? HH rules pretty much port straight over with a minimum of fuss. Why do you suddenly care about what they're doing with 8th.

I also love the "this is what I perceive people around me doing and read about others doing it this way on the internet so therefore it's the majority of people in the world" argument. That one never gets old. When I used to play in store regularly and even in clubs I primarily played with friends and through the process made new ones. Friends are able to discuss and negotiate things with one another. Seems to work pretty well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What's the big deal about having rules for both versions of the game?

Evidently some people don't like others being able to play in a way that's different to the way they like to play. Because some random in a store PUG who you may never play against or even see again probably won't agree to removing his Custodes tank because "you" (generalised you) don't like Custodes tanks being in 40k because they violate "your" head-canon in some manner.

Yeah, if this kind of uncalled for snideness is where you'd like to take this discussion, I'll bow out now.

The Orc Rogue Idol is back available It says its available today but can't see it on the FW site. Anybody know when its available? Hope it comes with the wooden mask like the previous release!

As FW has re-released a few older things that went oop (Vermin Lord, Rogue Idol) I wonder what chance there is of some of the really rare things being done again in a release window? Would love to see the Marienburg LandShip re-released...would be an auto-purchase. There's one on ebay currently bidding at over €700

 Donomar wrote:
The Orc Rogue Idol is back available It says its available today but can't see it on the FW site. Anybody know when its available?

It'll be available at the Open Day on Sunday. We don't know for sure if it's going back on general sale.

 Donomar wrote:
The Orc Rogue Idol is back available It says its available today but can't see it on the FW site. Anybody know when its available? Hope it comes with the wooden mask like the previous release!

As FW has re-released a few older things that went oop (Vermin Lord, Rogue Idol) I wonder what chance there is of some of the really rare things being done again in a release window? Would love to see the Marienburg LandShip re-released...would be an auto-purchase. There's one on ebay currently bidding at over €700

Based chinamen have them now if they don't bring it back.

 Gamgee wrote:
The Oiron looks fantastic and is easily up there as one of my fav ships now. FW "gets" flyers so much better than GW for the most part barring the Valkyrie/Corvus.

I think the difference is in how each sees a "good" flyer.

FW takes the approach of maintaining an aesthetics as grounded in reality as possible, where what is "good" are a variety of aesthetics that stretches the believability of what can fly. You believe it flies because it looks like it could fly... even though it probably wouldn't.

GW's approach could best be summarized as more of a "flying saucer" paradigm; if you imagine seeing a flying saucer it would provokes a "how does that fly" and inspire some sense of "awe." GW is relying on our willingness to buy into the fiction and that "it flies because we say it does." If you accept that fiction, these "poor" aircraft designs are suddenly marvels that in real life would be more startling to see fly.

I'm just waiting to see when the Fires of Cyraxus drops. I'm abandoning 30K but I have a decent size Mechanicum army. I want to know what I can bring into 40K with my Machinicus. And I'll sell the stuff that I can't. From all I've seen only the Thanatar has been shown. Really hoping a lot more makes it.

Vorax have been shown as well, in the background of one of the slides.

I would know. I look at those slides nearly every day, waiting for the ing full book to come out, so I can scour each page with my eyes and sniff the binding.

 aka_mythos wrote:
GW's approach could best be summarized as more of a "flying saucer" paradigm; if you imagine seeing a flying saucer it would provokes a "how does that fly" and inspire some sense of "awe." GW is relying on our willingness to buy into the fiction and that "it flies because we say it does." If you accept that fiction, these "poor" aircraft designs are suddenly marvels that in real life would be more startling to see fly.

I disagree. GW's approach seems to be more of a "how to we minimize sprue size" thing. They need to have all of the features of aircraft, but the proportions are all screwed up to pack it into a standard sprue size. I can't imagine someone at GW is sitting there looking at their designs, free from sprue constraints, and saying "this is a good idea".

Bit of a Space Marine fest today:

 zedmeister wrote:
Bit of a Space Marine fest today:

Oh FFS, do we really need more primaris marines? I just hope these only have 40k rules, and don't get brought into 30k.