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.

The back of the bolt gun looks familiar - but I can't quite place it.

the problem with that could well be showing a bunch of people who were at the even in the frame (and so could not be the naughty photo-taker meaning it would be a lot easier for GW to identify them by elimination)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If it is a conversion, I suspect the knee pad has come from a Stormcast Liberator or Judicator. Rivets filed off, attached to a standard Power Armour grieve and upper armour.

The kneepad doesn't look like either of those things. And which "standard Power Armour grieve"? It doesn't look familiar to me, and which "upper armour"?

That's what I mean, it LOOKS like a conversion to me, and it seems odd for it to be surrounded by old models, but no one seems to be able to identify the parts, which is odd because it doesn't look like the parts were scratch built.

The chest plate alone I would have expected someone to identify by now because it's quote distinctive.

I assume 'private event' would not be an even at the studio, merely as social gathering of a group of friends wherever, and a GW employee had brought one of the new models to show to their friends.

Hastings said that this model doesn't really match the description he was given about year ago, so there's that. But he has not seen any of the new marine models himself and verbal descriptions can be vague and misleading. When I saw this picture, I instantly noted that it really didn't match the Hastings rumour.

However, I remain convinced that this most likely is a genuine model. At least it is not a conversion in normal sense, almost every part of the miniature has details that do not exactly match any existing bits. It is completely or almost completely new sculpt. If it is not a GW model, we are probably witnessing the most ingenious third party marketing campaign ever. But then again we have two separate sources (of varying credibility) saying this is genuine GW design.

I still think that there is a strong possibility, that there is some confusion going on relating this new mark of marine power armour and the Custodes returning. Some of the rumours about 'new marines better than old marines' could actually mean Custodes and this new marine armour and gun are actually a separate thing, and just a gear upgrade for the normal marines. At least I hope that this is the case.

The whole thing is odd. The model fits the general description we've been given on the Nu-marines, including the long bolter, Stormcast grieve, Pipboy, and fancy Auto bolt pistol. But then Hastings doesn't seem positive that this is the real deal. If that's the case, then did someone who knew approximately what the real deal would look like scratch-build this guy that's approximately the same just for giggles?

I mean, I don't doubt that could be the case, but it seems quite crazy.

Because someone converted it, then made up the rumour to fit?

 Grot 6 wrote:


Oh no. No one is doubting that new marines are coming. Just that the one in the picture is not it. How exactly is that a 11+ page of discussion when it is only 1 out of focus picture on someone's dresser next to a bunch of random figures bringing this much back and fourth. Some of these replies are just beyond the pale, as well.

I mean it is like Bigfoot and Nessie had a love child and named it William S. Burroughs or something.

I'm calling B.S. THAT is no new marine photo, that's someone's silly conversion, and if it is true, show us the money. Stand up three different marines, one from second ed. one from current range, and one "Nu Marine" and lets have a proper conversation.

I have a "Nu Marine" as well. His name is Spots.

Again, this argument has been made numerous times, and every time if is off the mark, either because you can't address the actual point are being willfully obtuse to the other sides main point, which is this:

If the marine is a conversion what parts does it use from the existing range?

No one has answered that simple question convincingly. It could be a conversion, but if so it is so heavily sculpted over existing parts that it renders the core pieces unrecognizable.

So what you actually have is people looking closely at the detailed bits and cannot match them to any piece existing in GW's range. And the other side saying, " yeah but the feet are a little lighter."

I'd settle for someone clearly identifying the pistol components. That alone looks so different from any weapon it is clearly not hacked up. The Boltgun has enough going on where I can see the argument for conversion, but that pistol doesn't look like anything but a single piece. Same with the backpack. Same with the torso which just so happens to mirror the shape of Guilliman's new armor.

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Were you afraid to get caught shooting that picture? Would you face losing your job or possible legal action if caught? Were you rushed for time while the office tattle tail was in the bathroom?

Yeah, I always LOL when I read people criticising leaked photos for being poor quality when the person was more than likely taking them very rushed.

Thing is though modern smartphones take lot clearer pictures than that pretty much on the fly. You need to hold your hand steady like a tenth of a second.

Maybe the photographer is someone like me who doesn't frequently upgrade their phone and they're taking a photo on an older smart phone that doesn't take awesome pics? Or maybe it was taken in low light conditions and then had the brightness and contrast adjusted?

Albeit distance could be. If he had to take photo like several meters away and then cropped that would result in messy photo. At which point it might be better to post uncropped photo. Better photo with easier to see model(and anybody wishing to see cropped can do so)

Or maybe the rest of the frame had things that the photographer didn't want to share so they just cropped it to that?

It's so crappy picture(and generally leaks tend to be) that it almost has to be DELIBERATELY defocused and blurrified!

As you point out, leaks generally tend to be crappy pictures, because they're taken on the fly with little thought to taking a good picture but rather more thought on not getting caught Sometimes I wonder if all you people have never tried to do something dodgy that you weren't supposed to do while someone's back was turned

Yeah, it is perfectly possible that this is cropped picture. That would give this result. Whole photo probably showed some of the people present.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The thread's been up for almost 14 hours. Given the number of eyes that have been on that image in the interim, and the overwhelming ubiquity of Space Marine kits, the head, alongside every single other component, or piece of a component, should have been identified by now.

But not one thing has been identified with any element of certainty.

I saw a comment on FB that said something along the lines of "how can a model from an obscure, 30 year old manufacturer get identified in minutes, and yet nobody can pin down a single piece of this'll model, and people still claim it's a kitbash?"

These are fair points. Either this is a custom made mini, or this is real. I don't believe it is a kit-bash, but am willing to be proven wrong as I don't like it. Change is for ugly people.

While I think that might be a picture of a Gullimarine I would not be suprised if it was not.

It misses to much of GW's sculpters and designer's touch in many ways.

1. The biggest warning, not enough skulls GW sculpters are beaten repeatedly to ensure that they automatically cover any flat surface in Skulls. Apparently it takes other companies years to deprogram them after they escape GW.

2. There is not enough bling and pointless embellishment, a GW sculpt should be buried under so much extraneous gak you cannot tell what it actually is ment to be. Sculptor's get bonus marks for combining 1 & 2 see the exclusive SM Termi Chaplin for a good example of this.

3. The pose is not derpy enough during GW's Skulls training they are also trained to forget they have ever seen a human or animal in real life. This enables them to produce poses such as Robot Ghoulman, Pumbagore and any FW Bloodbowl sculpt that was not Zug.

4. Another thing is the face it actually looks like it could be Human and is way to detailed. GW sculptors are not alowed to produce realistic faces in case they look like someone in real life who may want royalties copyright. For example see every female sculpt GW evermade, and most of the last 20 years worth of marines that come in 2 categories bald and shouty or not bald and shouty.

5. The proportions and anatomy are way off that guy obviously would not be able it itch his foot or reach the floor without bending over, also his legs are weird they dont attach to the bottom of his torso at 90 degree angle like a real human aaahhhh no wait other way round

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
the problem with that could well be showing a bunch of people who were at the even in the frame (and so could not be the naughty photo-taker meaning it would be a lot easier for GW to identify them by elimination)

Well if that's the problem they could just cut them out. You can take just part of photo without destroying quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Maybe the photographer is someone like me who doesn't frequently upgrade their phone and they're taking a photo on an older smart phone that doesn't take awesome pics? Or maybe it was taken in low light conditions and then had the brightness and contrast adjusted/quote]

How come every leaker is incompetent photographer with lousy equipment? Especially in this age when it's hard to buy a phone without at least half decent camera in it...

Or maybe the rest of the frame had things that the photographer didn't want to share so they just cropped it to that?´

And did it in a way that enlargens this part? It's not cropping that's destroying quality. It's making small piece of photo into bigger piece.

If I have 3000x2000 pixel photo I can take 100x50 part of it and have 100x50 sized picture that's as good quality as the original.

Problem comes if you then try to make that 100x50 into say 500x250. THAT makes bad quality.

As you point out, leaks generally tend to be crappy pictures, because they're taken on the fly with little thought to taking a good picture but rather more thought on not getting caught Sometimes I wonder if all you people have never tried to do something dodgy that you weren't supposed to do while someone's back was turned

Thing is this photo is so bad that he would pretty much have to move hand on the fly to make it this bad. He can't stop hand for tenth of a second naturally? I would find constantly moving hand to be more suspicious... That or do something stupid it post-production like enlarge digitally(in which case put also the original! If you need to remove stuff from the picture do so but don't mess with the interesting part) or deliberately blurr it for...reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, it is perfectly possible that this is cropped picture. That would give this result. Whole photo probably showed some of the people present.

Taking only part of picture is not an issue if you don't mess with the size of the part you take. It's digital zooming(aka enlargening picture) that creates it.

At which point it's 100% possible to have the original picture WITHOUT other people. AT which point why not have that available as well?

tneva82 wrote:

Taking only part of picture is not an issue if you don't mess with the size of the part you take. It's digital zooming(aka enlargening picture) that creates it.

At which point it's 100% possible to have the original picture WITHOUT other people. AT which point why not have that available as well?

Because it would be tiny and you couldn't see the details any better.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Taking only part of picture is not an issue if you don't mess with the size of the part you take. It's digital zooming(aka enlargening picture) that creates it.

At which point it's 100% possible to have the original picture WITHOUT other people. AT which point why not have that available as well?

Because it would be tiny and you couldn't see the details any better.

Not neccessarily and those wanting digital zoom can still do it. It's not like it's zoom now or never.

Always have photos with bare minimum modifications. In this case cutting unwanted stuff is more than enough. Zoom ANYBODY can do. Getting original out of zoomed? Impossible.

Not sure if this has already been suggested, but...

What if the mini we are seeing is a little of both conversion and new mini? A kind of prototype presented at the private function as an example of how the SM will change after GS?

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is this photo is so bad that he would pretty much have to move hand on the fly to make it this bad. He can't stop hand for tenth of a second naturally?

You're just making a whole bunch of assumptions.

Seriously have you never taken a picture and thought "oh gee that came out a bit crap" because you did something like moving your hand, had poor lighting, didn't wait long enough for the camera to focus or it focused on the wrong thing? When you're snapping a pic you're not supposed to be snapping you don't always have the ability to tweak your lighting/flash/angle to get a better shot, hell you might not even have been looking at the screen in the first place.

It doesn't actually look like the hand was moving at all in this case, but I could believe the camera wasn't in focus, the lighting was poor or the distance was just too great to get a good sharp picture.

tneva82 wrote:
Always have photos with bare minimum modifications. In this case cutting unwanted stuff is more than enough. Zoom ANYBODY can do. Getting original out of zoomed? Impossible.

Just zoom out and you basically get back to the original. There might have been a bit of interpolation you can't undo, but the interpolation usually doesn't have a huge effect if you just take the zoom back to its original level.

Given the snap appears to have been taken and then exported on a phone, I imagine the person just took the pic, zoomed in on the phone itself, took a screen cap (you can still see the phone status bar at the top of the image) and then they or someone else used a computer to block out the thing about the backpack, saved it as a low quality JPEG and posted it online.

I know it's hard for us internet nerds to believe, but not everyone gives a crap as much as we do when it comes to preserving the original quality of the image (which may have been poor anyway).

The day I hear someone who complains about poor quality early leak photos actually providing a good quality early leak I'll be impressed

Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Or howabout take video? More easy to get one in secret, less trouble with movement and not one attempt only.

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Or howabout take video? More easy to get one in secret, less trouble with movement and not one attempt only.

Actually you might be on to something there, it might have been from a video, the image has an artifacting that looks like the image has been broken up in to lots of little squares (which are none the less larger than individual pixels). I'm not all that familiar with compression artifacts, but isn't that what macroblocking does? Which is usually an artifact associated with videos more than still images? It's not something I'm familiar with seeing in pictures but it's quite a common compression artifact in videos.

Maybe the leaker tried to take your advice and took a video but couldn't get a quality still out of it in the end

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Or howabout take video? More easy to get one in secret, less trouble with movement and not one attempt only.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this tangent?

The picture is what it is, very likely a small part of a much larger whole, cropped and edited before being shared, no amount of post-hoc photography lessons are going to change it.

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Or howabout take video? More easy to get one in secret, less trouble with movement and not one attempt only.

There probably was a sense of urgency to get the pic and hide the device before being discovered, if it was at a private event.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Keep ignoring the fact that the picture in the OP has a marked delineation between where the dark grey and white grey start. The legs themselves are dark grey while the feet are white grey. Your photo would have more merit if, say, the arm was still dark grey while just the hand was the white grey.

A marked delineation where the greave ends and the boot begins you mean? Otherwise known as the point where legs normally take a sharp turn as they transition into feet?
You do understand that the pose of the model is leaning forwards, such that the shin would be in shade and the toes in full light, don't you?

Further, how do you account for the fact that the shaded portions of the boots, right under the ankle, are the same colour as the rest of the leg?

Basically you're looking at a light grey highlight on a medium grey model and assuming it's actually a separate light grey component despite it being the same colour as the other highlights on the model which all have smooth transitions to the base due to their curvature when in actuality it should be even lighter.

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Go ahead, take a photo in low light with a shaky hand and then blow up a small section of the photo. Let's see what quality you get out of it.

We could look at numerous photos people take of their own models to see some terrible lighting and blurriness.

Consider the following.

It isn't a conversion.
It isn't a "leak".

GW are putting this out there to gauge initial reaction. Looks good to me. Don't think they'll end up much bigger than the current DW sculpts, perhaps half a head and a bit chunkier if the size of that old metal mini is anything to go buy.

 Insectum7 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Go ahead, take a photo in low light with a shaky hand and then blow up a small section of the photo. Let's see what quality you get out of it.

We could look at numerous photos people take of their own models to see some terrible lighting and blurriness.

Actually that's very true, even if you look at the "highest rated" photos in the past week in the Dakka gallery, plenty of them are just as bad (I don't want to link any specifically because I'm not trying to shame anyone, but just have a flick through and you'll see a bunch that are about on par with the photo in the OP).

It's night time here and I just have an overhead light on, neither my phone nor my point and shoot camera is able to take a photo of the models on my desk of better quality than the OP, not unless I turn on more lights or physically pick up the models and hold them to the light so more light gets in the camera lens to stop them being blurry.

I can't see it too well, but the wrist computer and left elbow look like the 30th anniversary marines. I also see a piece of the Watch Master's clavis I believe.
Also, if this is a kitbash, then those are undoubtedly Stormcast Knees. I took it back before but the more I look at it the more I see it. A lot of cutting and filing has been done, but it looks like the SE Paladin knees with most the detail filed off.

I also saw somewhere a picture of some Librarian head compared with this one, and if anything I think this looked much closer to it (I'd need to see the face unpainted to tell, but I don't know which librarian it's from) than the centurion. One thing that really baffles me though is the pistol. Either way, if this IS real, which would be real weird if it was, I hope they're just marines with upgraded gear rather than some next generation super marines.

 Azreal13 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Or howabout take video? More easy to get one in secret, less trouble with movement and not one attempt only.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this tangent?

The picture is what it is, very likely a small part of a much larger whole, cropped and edited before being shared, no amount of post-hoc photography lessons are going to change it.

If it's just cropping it wouldn't be so bad. Cropping doesn't kill quality. Digital zoom does(seriously never ever zoom with phone camera. It does nothing computer can't do except computer does it better!).

I wouldn't be surprised if pic is deliberately made bad. Possibly by gw in deliberate leaks. There's been lots of suspiciously bad ones that smell like deliberatle leaks. With modern cameras(meaning sold within 5 years) you need to go to hell's depth to get THAT bad photo.

Take camera, point anywhere, push shutter, keep pressing, move toward target, halt for second or two, stop. You have piles of photos includin# several of target when hand still. You are either unluckiest or worst photographer in the world if you don't get better than that.


(Oh and forget zoom. You want to zoom later anyway computer does it better)

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/03/12/big-news-coming-this-week/

Answers may be forthcoming(unless its Duardin )

We've known about their shows for a while

Here's to Adepticon shining a light!

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is user doesn't really have to do much more than let camera do it's job and result is better than that. How come every leaker is incompetent photographer? My 7 year old niece does it better!

Or howabout take video? More easy to get one in secret, less trouble with movement and not one attempt only.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this tangent?

The picture is what it is, very likely a small part of a much larger whole, cropped and edited before being shared, no amount of post-hoc photography lessons are going to change it.

If it's just cropping it wouldn't be so bad. Cropping doesn't kill quality. Digital zoom does(seriously never ever zoom with phone camera. It does nothing computer can't do except computer does it better!).

I wouldn't be surprised if pic is deliberately made bad. Possibly by gw in deliberate leaks. There's been lots of suspiciously bad ones that smell like deliberatle leaks. With modern cameras(meaning sold within 5 years) you need to go to hell's depth to get THAT bad photo.

Take camera, point anywhere, push shutter, keep pressing, move toward target, halt for second or two, stop. You have piles of photos includin# several of target when hand still. You are either unluckiest or worst photographer in the world if you don't get better than that.


(Oh and forget zoom. You want to zoom later anyway computer does it better)

I spent 12 years selling mobile phones for a living, I can probably provide a number of user error based reasons for the quality of the pic, let alone deliberate actions or technical limitations which would give similar outcomes.

You're making a fundamental assumption that the phone used is modern, of reasonable spec, and being used by someone with a reasonable knowledge of its function. None of these is a certainty.

In fact, the look of the status bar is very evocative of some very basic smartphones I've sold, by no means definitive, but I found I had to guess I'd say it's a low end network branded handset, but that's obviously based on very little data.

Small detail though, that "R" next to the signal bar indicates that when that screenshot was taken, the phone wasn't using its native network and was roaming.

So if this is a GW model and if it does not fit Hasting's notions, then could we be getting new marines AND truescale marines.

Also, I am buying the notion that this picture is part of a much bigger picture, taking from a distance, perhaps with multiple people it, and someone forgot just how well cameras can zoom (hence did not feel the need to hide away this model). Or that it was taken covertly. [Or they want to make us think that ]