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 do like alternative sculpts/poses but a couple look a little iffy in that Legendary pilot set - like the pilot maybe had one too many adult beverages during the pre-mission briefing...

I will reserve final judgement till I have them in hand though....

petrov27 wrote:
I do like alternative sculpts/poses but a couple look a little iffy in that Legendary pilot set - like the pilot maybe had one too many adult beverages during the pre-mission briefing...

I will reserve final judgement till I have them in hand though....

It's due to assembly errors at the manufacturer and has supposedly been addressed.

 Stormonu wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 guinness707 wrote:
Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.

I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.

Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?

It's a joke about how the model is pointing up to the sky. Though, to be serious, I think in BT terms it's part of the (internal) lower center torso, possibly around the joint between the legs.

I just looked it and it made more sense. What's that melted mass of plastic on the right torso supposed to be?

Nurglitch wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 guinness707 wrote:
Anyone care for the Legendary mechs? The Mad Cat is fine but the others.....just seem really bad.

I don't know about everyone else, but I've always seen Battletech as a "my guys" sort of game, so no interest statwise. Though alternately posed mech models isn't a bad thing - as long as they don't cost extra. On the KS previews, I like the Marauder and Mad Cat. Obvious problem with the Dire Wolf's gyro, and the Archer somehow looks "wrong" - too bulky.

Sorry, what part of the Dire Wolf model is the gyro, and what's obviously wrong with it?

It's a joke about how the model is pointing up to the sky. Though, to be serious, I think in BT terms it's part of the (internal) lower center torso, possibly around the joint between the legs.

I just looked it and it made more sense. What's that melted mass of plastic on the right torso supposed to be?

You mean the Ultra AC20? Yeah, it seems to have suffered a bit on that model. Hopefully the ones that we get are a bit tighter.

Production doesn't usually out-strip samples in quality. Then again, maybe they're using Master Unit Dies to do the samples before carving out the steel molds.

New Clan Striker Star sketches are up!

As a pack, definitely one of my favorites, with lots of second line 3055/3058 goodness. I don't know if I need 3 or 4!
Goshawk/Vapor Eagle

Conjurer/definitely not a Wolverine IIC

My personal favorite, the Peregrine/Horned Owl

The Incubus/Vixen


And finally- the Piranha/Piranha

Not really a big fan of that group TBH, except for the Piranha.

Man, they really need some Clan ER MGs.

These are not great.

Which disappoints me alot, cause Vapour Eagles and Incubi are 2 of my favorites

The Inner Sphere Command Lance is up:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/450703636/battletech-clan-invasion/posts/2922981

Some of those details look pretty soft, but painting with heavy washes should probably still get some nice results for those less into that side of the hobby.

They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

Any idea what material that is for production?

It's PVC. Nice PVC to be sure, though.

I've got dropships full of plastic, old PVC, resin and metal mechs and I can't believe that I'm actually saying this, but the new PVC mechs are my favourite just from a material standpoint.

I don't know at what point in life that durability became a factor in the equation (that's a lie, I do know - it was the appearance of children...), but I find that the moderate increase in the level of detail that you get with resin isn't worth the trade-off.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

all models are just boardgame markes

paying more for better detailed resin minis won't be an option for me

might be nice to have some legendary or special config mechs in resin for display but not for gaming (I have my problems with premium high detailed but expensive models that are nice for display but not really suited for gaming)

PVC is fine, better than Resin or Metal for the job but the only thing really missing for now are weapon upgrade packs to convert the different Mechs

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.

I am very much aware of the fact, yes. I still have the cardboard cutouts of the first edition.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.

which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?

 kodos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.

which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?

GW's. They're jewel-like objects of wonder.

 kodos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.

which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?

by that I mean Battletech at it';s core design isn't a mini game. I can literally play battletech with some sheets of paper, a hex map and a chat client, I've done it (don't reccomend it BTW, but it's what you needed to do in the age before Megamek) I can't do that with say... 40k, AOS, X-wing etc

BrianDavion wrote:
by that I mean Battletech at it';s core design isn't a mini game. I can literally play battletech with some sheets of paper, a hex map and a chat client, I've done it (don't reccomend it BTW, but it's what you needed to do in the age before Megamek) I can't do that with say... 40k, AOS, X-wing etc

Honestly, I completely agree. That's actually one of the things I like about Battletech: the board makes it so much clearer.

That doesn't really mean a thing about the minis used for it, though. As it doesn't for any of the others, really.

 Albertorius wrote:

GW's. They're jewel-like objects of wonder.

on a display, yes.
on the table, just markers to easier remember which base belongs to which type of model

BrianDavion wrote:

by that I mean Battletech at it';s core design isn't a mini game. I can literally play battletech with some sheets of paper, a hex map and a chat client, I've done it (don't reccomend it BTW, but it's what you needed to do in the age before Megamek) I can't do that with say... 40k, AOS, X-wing etc

you can play X-Wing perfectly fine with just the base and the cards, no models needed at all

AoS and 40k less so because Line of Sight is a thing (not so much any more with 9th 40k) but you are fine using bases with a rod to know how large the model is

it does not look good, but you don't need the models to play the game and there is no game I played were the models were really needed and could not be replaced with a simple cardboard marker as well

yet the new Battletech minis are nice and well done and make the game look better and overcome the old boardgame with markers reputation

 kodos wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

GW's. They're jewel-like objects of wonder.

on a display, yes.
on the table, just markers to easier remember which base belongs to which type of model

...well, yes. That is the joke.

 Albertorius wrote:

...well, yes. That is the joke.

sorry, was not sure if you were serious or not

 kodos wrote:

PVC is fine, better than Resin or Metal for the job but the only thing really missing for now are weapon upgrade packs to convert the different Mechs

I doubt Catalyst will make weapons sprues in the near future but Iron Wind is releasing some in metal to assist with customization.

 kodos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They look no better or worse than the current starterbox minis.

No better or worse than what I was expecting, to be honest. "Nice enough" but mainly boardgame markers, nothing like high end resin or metal minis. And that's pefectly OK.

Of course, I'd love to be able to get the actual 3d files, but well... that ain't happening.

keep in mind that battletech minis basicly ARE boardgame markers.

which minis used for gaming are NOT boardgame markers?

Games in which the three dimensional volume of the miniature are relevant to the purposes of gameplay - which actually makes GW's miniatures legitimately not just boardgame markers. You couldn't replace them with wood meeples or a monopoly piece and still play the same game (whereas a game like warmachine or infinity the models third dimensional is essentially irrelevant due to the way the mechanics relate to its volume).

It's Kickstarter adjacent, but for those of you who may be unaware, IWM has begun releasing metal versions of the plastic CGL redesigns. Some even have variant parts.

if GW models are not markers, any conversion or not exactly building a unit as it is supposed to be would be a problem
not even talking about old models that have different size or 3rd party models

yet you see more conversions and 3rd party models in GW games than in Games like Warmachine or Infinity

while GW games do not have specific rules, the games are so loose that the actual model used does not matter and an appropriate sized piece of wood is enough to play

 kodos wrote:
if GW models are not markers, any conversion or not exactly building a unit as it is supposed to be would be a problem
not even talking about old models that have different size or 3rd party models

I'm surprised that you seem to have never encountered the phrase "modeling for advantage". It originated in the 40k community, and its still primarily used within the GW hobby and virtually nowhere else.