40k Open Day round up thread

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.

**solkan**

gossipmeng wrote:
The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.

I think you've managed to top the steroetypical "OMG, I'm playing with toy soldiers" and gone into completely new denial territory.

Rhinos and land raiders have detailed interiors with hatches that you can leave open. (And drop pods, and whatever else they can manage.) Most of the vehicle turrets are easy enough to put in place using magnets, or just not glued, so they can swivel around. Remember when the rules for the game said that vehicle turrets had line of sight based on where they could be pivoted to see?

Games Workshop has been making toys for children of all ages for the past twenty five years.

**BrianDavion**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
WHCommunity wrote:Each book will be accompanied by an epic champion to lead the charge in this terrible age. These legendary heroes will include reborn, reimagined and brand-new characters, but we can’t reveal any more details at the moment.

Azrael for DA? I doubt TS will get anything, CSM have just had a new Sorcerer model and there's not much more design room for them given they have Magnus.

Tau vs who? And who will be reimagined? Farsight is new(ish) isn't he? Shadowsun perhaps? She's still resin, right?

SW vs Orks must be the last one. As we practically know for a fact that Ragnar is getting re-done, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Orks get no new models.

Saga of the beast? yeah that name pretty much screams "Space Wovles vs Orks" given Saga's are kind of a space wolf thing, and the beast is well... THE BEAST. could be intreasting as it could mean bringing in stuff from the beast arises. I'd be sad if we didn't get a plastic Ghaz with the release.

zamerion wrote:
Arbitrator wrote:
Two Imperial models and some janky animated shorts.

Yawn. Somehow I can't be surprised anymore.
. Very poor day..

I know how dare sisters of battle get new mini's! they get so many!

**Mr Morden**

Really impressed with this wave of models.

The Archaeopter fits perectly with my vision of Ad Mech - wierd steampunky contraptions - awesome - will be getting one (as a Moorcock fan - it also appeals to my enjoyment of his movels - esp Hawkmoon) - really like the landing legs.

Triumph of Saint Katherine is another gorgeous model and must buy.

'eavy Bomber is cool and grot bombs also. Not got to play with Aeronautica yet so not auto buy

Mephiston is a lovely model - but hate GWs character model prices.

**Togusa**

Overread wrote:
Togusa wrote:

It's a neat model, but I'll be passing. It's not playable on the table top.

It's base doesn't look any bigger than a knights and the models in it are all walking forwards (or flying). So its visually mobile, at least as much as any other infantry models we get.
It's certainly more diorama than pure model, but it would certainly work on the tabletop. AoS is full of mobile thrones and shrines; meanwhile Krakatos is already appearing on battlefields and he was very much the same (multiple models on a posed base) if not a bit more extreme as his pose is static rather than mobile.

Edit - the new animations are looking very interesting. Still just at the teaser level but still pretty big - though a bit of a shame that a good few look to be quite "jumpy" in animation as opposed to smoothed, but that might just be pre-production and scene selection. The animated kids books will be neat to see GW engaging new and younger fans. Meanwhile the rest look creative and fun. Just hope we get to see lots of Xenos appearing!

It's not the base, it's all the redicilous pointy bits and stuff that is going to break off, combined with the just over the top nonsensical look of it. I see it much more as a diorama, rather than an actual model you'd bring to a game.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Have fun transporting Dead Kathy to the FLGS, all I'm gonna say.

Overall not a lot of reveals, but I don't think OD's have been a big revealer in the past.

**ceorron**

JBSchroeds wrote:
ceorron wrote:
I don't like the flyer at all, looks far to animalistic. It would really clashes with the current Admech line. Maybe if you they took a Valkyrie swapped the cockpit for the new one and added all the new weapons in roughly the same places I think you would have a much better looking model.

Might be worth the conversion for those that don't like the new model (like me).

So the wings, tail and engines of the Valkyrie with the body for the new flyer and I think you have something that would look much better.

Oh and leave off the legs.

I don't understand the "too animalistic to fit in" critique when you've got Ironstirder/Dragoons and Dunecrawlers skittering about in the same model range.

Spoiler:

EDIT: Even the forgeworld section of the range has animal-looking entries:

Spoiler:

I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:

If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

And a real dragonfly for reference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Togusa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
ceorron wrote:
I don't like the flyer at all, looks far to animalistic.

...because the Striders and Dunecrawler don't somehow?

This is the example of complaining to complain. You say it doesn't fit in with the rest of the models, except it literally does!

It does, people just need something to whine about.

See above for my explanation.

**blood reaper**

Togusa wrote:
blood reaper wrote:
Togusa wrote:
blood reaper wrote:
gossipmeng wrote:
The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.

I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.

The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.

Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.

I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.

Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....

Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)

Yeah duff product out of many doesn't really prove anything - I don't deny Forge World has a lot of duff sculpts - in fact there's a lot of problems with Forge World, the point is more that in general, Forge World has a somewhat more refined, nicer style. Most of that time, that is.

Moaning is such a literal non-point. Christ alive, some of you people are so attached to your commodities even passing criticism sees you lose your minds - Marcuse was right.

I don't see it as criticism Blood Reaper. I just see it as people taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss. Art is subjective, some will like it, some wont. Most don't care.

So it's not real criticism? Why? What is not 'taking the piss' (an incredibly broad category btw, because it's a meaningless one).

People who's go to response to problems is 'whining' or 'salt' or 'moaning' openly present themselves as uninterested in discussion that isn't near universally positive imo. It is a non-point - it is a non-sequitur.

**JBSchroeds**

.

**Togusa**

blood reaper wrote:
Togusa wrote:
blood reaper wrote:
Togusa wrote:
blood reaper wrote:
gossipmeng wrote:
The flyer is a perfect example of why I haven't played 40k in ages. Everything is starting to look like a legit toy. I can visualize some 90s commercial with kids going wowwwww and pushing little buttons on it to fire missiles.

I don't understand how forgeworld can feel so gritty and "real" and GW is all bling and.... I'd not know the term... the details feel too thick and childish.

The sisters have been solid overall, but it seems like every other design is a complete flop.

Forge World's designers don't design for literal children, which I think is a part of it.

I honestly think this model summarises everything wrong with a lot of new 40k kits, and in general the style of a majority of the new models is a result of CAD design.

Uh, have you seen the new missiles for the FW dreadnoughts? They look very much like a GI Joe Toy....

Jesus you people will moan about anything and everything. (Me too.)

Yeah duff product out of many doesn't really prove anything - I don't deny Forge World has a lot of duff sculpts - in fact there's a lot of problems with Forge World, the point is more that in general, Forge World has a somewhat more refined, nicer style. Most of that time, that is.

Moaning is such a literal non-point. Christ alive, some of you people are so attached to your commodities even passing criticism sees you lose your minds - Marcuse was right.

I don't see it as criticism Blood Reaper. I just see it as people taking the piss for the sake of taking the piss. Art is subjective, some will like it, some wont. Most don't care.

So it's not real criticism? Why? What is not 'taking the piss' (an incredibly broad category btw, because it's a meaningless one).

People who's go to response to problems is 'whining' or 'salt' or 'moaning' openly present themselves as uninterested in discussion that isn't near universally positive imo. It is a non-point - it is a non-sequitur.

Fair. I never understood the point of "I like" or "I don't Like" comments. Since we're all different, it doesn't seem worth it.

**ceorron**

JBSchroeds wrote:
ceorron wrote:

I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:

Spoiler:

If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

And a real dragonfly for reference.

Spoiler:

Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.

True true.

But it isn't so much about if it would work mechanically in a universe with psychic/magical powers, anything could work in such a world, and more about whether it looks "right".

**Adeptus Doritos**

JBSchroeds wrote:
Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.

I'm convinced that our local mosquitos do have some sort of armor plating system as well as laser-cutters. I'm pretty sure if you slap them, they'll laugh and slap you right back.

**Togusa**

JBSchroeds wrote:
ceorron wrote:

I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:

Spoiler:

If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

And a real dragonfly for reference.

Spoiler:

Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.

I smell a Alex Jones episode on this topic soon.

"Dragonfly Technologists at Area 51 have cloned the Anti-Christ and are using the souls of christian children to power their anti-gravity technology! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

**Overread**

ceorron wrote:

If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

And a real dragonfly for reference.

In fairness this is kind of an issue for pretty much all wings at 28mm scale for larger models. Dragons, angels, aircraft, tyranids - pretty much all have pitifully tiny wings compared to their body size. Otherwise you'd be having wings covering insane amounts of tablespcae; very impractical to play with (and expensive to buy). 6-15mm can be more proportional, or at least has potential to do so as then the size isn't game breaking mechanically not budget breaking (at least until you hit titan sized flying models of course).

Granted I get your point that if the wings were proportionally bigger it might look better. Note that it could also be a photo-thing and that in person the wings appear far bigger in relation to the body and overall.

**ceorron**

Overread wrote:
ceorron wrote:

If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

And a real dragonfly for reference.

In fairness this is kind of an issue for pretty much all wings at 28mm scale for larger models. Dragons, angels, aircraft, tyranids - pretty much all have pitifully tiny wings compared to their body size. Otherwise you'd be having wings covering insane amounts of tablespcae; very impractical to play with (and expensive to buy). 6-15mm can be more proportional, or at least has potential to do so as then the size isn't game breaking mechanically not budget breaking (at least until you hit titan sized flying models of course).

Granted I get your point that if the wings were proportionally bigger it might look better. Note that it could also be a photo-thing and that in person the wings appear far bigger in relation to the body and overall.

good points.

**insaniak**

Tastyfish wrote:
The Ornithopters might be more famously from Dune, but they're also portrayed that way in the John Carter film (not sure if they are ornithopters in the books, but these are books that were written less than 10 years after the Wright Brother's first flight).

The flyers in the books were more like boats with their hulls filled with with a lighter-than-air substance (Burroughs explained it as a ray from the sun that we don't get here on earth because of reasons, that the Martians split off from sunlight and store in tanks). The smaller one-man flyers I always pictured as something like a dirigible jetski.

Galas wrote:
But to call it toys, or worse, to say they are designed for children, is just insulting for the people that like those designs,...

Only if you think that being a toy or designed for children makes it inappropriate for adults. (Hint: It doesn't)

I will say though that I don't think it's 'designed for children' so much as GW simply getting better at designing models in the aesthetic that they've pretty much always been aiming for. 40K has been cartoony and over-the-top from the start. It's not realistic sci fi, has never been realistic sci fi, and is not intended to be realistic sci fi. It's fantasy in space, and dialing that up to 11 just makes it better.

**Slayer-Fan123**

JBSchroeds wrote:
ceorron wrote:

I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:

Spoiler:

If the wings were like twice the size or appeared more substancial (like a really dragonfly) then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

And a real dragonfly for reference.

Spoiler:

Real dragonflies don't have anti-gravity technology at their disposal or big jet thrusters out back.

Also it looks no less fragile than the friggin Dunestriders.

**GoatboyBeta**

The Triumph of Saint Katherine is an interesting one. Its a lovely model that really hits the gothic sc-ifi spot. But like Katakros from the Bone reapers in AoS I'm not really sold on it as a gaming piece.

The Archaeopter on the other hand is just flat out great. Its a perfect fit for the retro/pulp sci-fi with a creepy twist theme that the AM have. The only downside is that it could force me to finally commit to a Mechanicus army.

**Emicrania**

I think orks will get new Ghazzy and a new mek. That´s it.

**Yodhrin**

Crimson wrote:
The Ad Mech flyer looks great apart the hind legs.Some people just do not seem to get that the theme of Ad Mech is weird steampunk contraptions. They have generated an image of what Ad Mech should be in their heads and are disappointed when the actual models are not as plain and boring than the ones they imagined.

I get that your brand is being incapable of appreciating that anyone can disagree with you without being dumb, insincere, or unreasonable, but seriously man, get over yourself.

And if you can't, then put the blame where it belongs - GW. The way a lot of people "imagined" AdMech comes directly from GW's art, background, and novels prior to the main model line being created. Their theme was never "weird steampunk contraptions" before, it was brutal industrialism combined with techno-body horror.

**Voss**

Emicrania wrote:
I think orks will get new Ghazzy and a new mek. That´s it.

'Each book will be accompanied by an epic champion to lead the charge' says you're expecting at least one too many models. Two if Ragnar Primaris happens.

Why a mek anyway? Orks already have 3 plastic mekboyz. A plastic weirdboy would actually be relevant to the (admittedly, entirely theoretical) theme of the campaign, and there are currently zero, just the finecast one.

**No wolves on Fenris**

Emicrania wrote:
I think orks will get new Ghazzy and a new mek. That´s it.

Well it said “reborn” ( The Lion?) “reimagined” (Ghazghull?) and “new” (new Tau character?)

That’s my thoughts

**Jidmah**

Voss wrote:
Why a mek anyway? Orks already have 3 plastic mekboyz. A plastic weirdboy would actually be relevant to the (admittedly, entirely theoretical) theme of the campaign, and there are currently zero, just the finecast one.

Because the KFF mek is a central element of the ork army and is currently out of a model because the metal model was unable to handle finecast and was therefore discontinue.
However, the new CA lists a "Big Mek with Kustom Force Field" which is currently not a datasheet that exists. Therefore we assume that the new model might be that mek.

**Coenus Scaldingus**

GoatboyBeta wrote:
The Triumph of Saint Katherine is an interesting one. Its a lovely model that really hits the gothic sc-ifi spot. But like Katakros from the Bone reapers in AoS I'm not really sold on it as a gaming piece.

Although similar in various ways, I vastly prefer the Triumph to Katakros as a gaming piece. The base size is a fair bit smaller, but more than that, the figures are actually in motion. Katakros and friends moving across the battlefield just looks wrong to me, given that it's a fully stationary diorama.

**Crimson**

Yodhrin wrote:

I get that your brand is being incapable of appreciating that anyone can disagree with you without being dumb, insincere, or unreasonable, but seriously man, get over yourself.

I am not begrudging anyone for disliking it, but you don't need to make up bs to try to make your dislike seem somehow objective.

And if you can't, then put the blame where it belongs - GW. The way a lot of people "imagined" AdMech comes directly from GW's art, background, and novels prior to the main model line being created. Their theme was never "weird steampunk contraptions" before, it was brutal industrialism combined with techno-body horror.

Body horror sure, brutal Industrialism, not so much. Even in the original Rogue Trader where things more scify and less gothic the Ad Mech was already baroque and weird. They have always had very distinctly retro look, even before the steampunk was a thing. If you expected these guys to have some sleek scifi vehicles you were deluding yourself. This is yet again a situation where you think GW is wrong by not adhering to your headcanon.

**Danny76**

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
Emicrania wrote:
I think orks will get new Ghazzy and a new mek. That´s it.

Well it said “reborn” ( The Lion?) “reimagined” (Ghazghull?) and “new” (new Tau character?)

That’s my thoughts

I’d imagine reborn is someone going through the Primaris project if anything.
That said reborn could be Ragnar or whoever.
The Lion could fit New just as easy.

Remember he’s just asleep.
Guilliman you could argue was reborn as he was mortally wounded etc.
But the Lion is just missing to them, and sleeping to us.

**Sunny Side Up**

ceorron wrote:

I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me. Take a look:
n.

Well, it's not just animalistic. I think it takes strong inspiration from Renaissance sketches for flying machines (predominantly Leonardo Da Vinci), which admittedly were largely inspired by observation of animals. Still, the detour is important, I think.

**BrianDavion**

yeah my first thought when I saw it was divinci's flying machines.

**Elbows**

The flyer looks...okay? I don't play Admech, but I'm curious to see what people do with it (i.e. most stuff looks better painted by gamers than GW - so let's see the commission studios paint em up).

The triumph is gak-stupid, but I feel that way about any model you can't transport...and any immobile model that moves around the table. Why a huge marble piece with a throne/chair? If it's immobile I'll dislike it 30% less. That model just screams "feth you!" to people who want to travel with it to tournaments. Really despise wargaming models done like that, a direction GW is increasingly going in.

Will it serve as some good painting competition diorama? Sure. As a wargaming miniature? gak-stupid.

**BrianDavion**

Elbows wrote:
The flyer looks...okay? I don't play Admech, but I'm curious to see what people do with it (i.e. most stuff looks better painted by gamers than GW - so let's see the commission studios paint em up).

The triumph is gak-stupid, but I feel that way about any model you can't transport...and any immobile model that moves around the table. Why a huge marble piece with a throne/chair? If it's immobile I'll dislike it 30% less. That model just screams "feth you!" to people who want to travel with it to tournaments. Really despise wargaming models done like that, a direction GW is increasingly going in.

Will it serve as some good painting competition diorama? Sure. As a wargaming miniature? gak-stupid.

iit's not a throne or a chair at the center. It's a requilary containing the remains of saint Katherine.
remember those pictures of the Ark of the covenant in Raiders of the lost ark? take that general idea... and 40kize it.
I'm not saying I disagree that it could be awkward to transport, (we'll have to see how it works) but the idea of it, is absolutely in keeping with the SoBs

**H.B.M.C.**

Games Workshop wrote:An entire day dedicated to Warhammer 40,000? At Warhammer World, the official home of the hobby?! Sounds like an awesome day out, right?

It took you an entire day to show off 3 models we hadn't seen, one we had seen in progress, and make a trailer for some more ~~Codex update~~ campaign books? Fascinating...

ceorron wrote:
I'm not saying animalistic models are bad. Just all of those models have definite mechanical themes to them. This model looks far too clean and fragile to work as a mechanical device meaning it leans very heavily on it's routes as a dragonfly (it's animal inspiration). This makes the model look "wrong" (uncanny valley "wrong") to me.

I completely get where you're coming from, but that's actually the reason I like it so much.

As I said a few pages back, I love the idea that the AdMech hand out all the normal "boring" stuff to the Imperium at large, but save the more technologically interesting/superior stuff for themselves.

"Yes, yes. Enjoy your 'Valkyrie' with its 'turbines' and 'control surfaces'... meanwhile, look what we can do!!!" *Ornithopter flies/flaps overhead at the same speed as the Valk, somehow*