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.

Can we just give the pricing speculation a rest?
None of you know, and a page of guesswork is more than enough.

I think the theory that is manufacturers / retailers price stuff to sell at he highest profit, not necessarily the highest price, ie if they can make more money selling at £9 than they can at £10 then they should sell at £9, which is an important distinction, though tbh I've given up on looking for consistency in their pricing model (except that ever constant upward trajectory, that's hard to miss).

Nice image from thehoruseheresy.com with the new contemptor on the right

Spoilered because massive



I like the fact that they’re keep the composite image style from the black books and imperial armour series

Nice.

I really hope they keep the same image style of real models photographed in "real life".
It looks so awesome and really ties in the models to the world.

Leaked rules include Lucius for EC - a pleasant surprise. Hope that means a 30k model for him is on the horizon.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I really hope they keep the same image style of real models photographed in "real life".
It looks so awesome and really ties in the models to the world.

Yes, I hope so too. The battle scenes using photoshoped minis were the thing that I always preferred about FW books. In comparison, 40k codices have amazing art, but their miniatures battle scenes look awful.

How could the codex battle scenes using real life minis look awful? Disclosure, I haven't bought a codex in many years, but I have stacks of WDs and old codices and I have very fond memories of the battle displays, even with the goblin green bases, even with the candid pics taken by (assuming) amateur photographers. How could they mess this up, given that they had the technique perfected in the nineties? Maybe it's just my nostalgia, but I'm having difficulty imagining their battle scene dioramas look bad (and yes I agree the HH black book scenes are among the best).

I believe I hate everything so far. This release is a catastrophic failure for me, from the obvious retcons to the people accepting them like they had always been there, the unnecessary change of edition, the models and kits that aren't gonna be in the new edition, the end of the black books... If this proves a single thing, it's that there is never enough gatekeeping

 godardc wrote:
I believe I hate everything so far. This release is a catastrophic failure for me, from the obvious retcons to the people accepting them like they had always been there, the unnecessary change of edition, the models and kits that aren't gonna be in the new edition, the end of the black books... If this proves a single thing, it's that there is never enough gatekeeping

You can keep playing the old edition alone. That way can you can gatekeep everyone else.

People complaining about "anachronistic" armor marks is the logical end result of the same attitude that led to that WD guy's Son of Horus army getting excoriated. First of all, yes, there was Corvus armor in production by that time. Even Mk. VII was being produced by the Siege of Terra. Secondly, what are you trying to prove? That you're more of a pedant than anyone else?

 RaptorusRex wrote:
People complaining about "anachronistic" armor marks is the logical end result of the same attitude that led to that WD guy's Son of Horus army getting excoriated. First of all, yes, there was Corvus armor in production by that time. Even Mk. VII was being produced by the Siege of Terra. Secondly, what are you trying to prove? That you're more of a pedant than anyone else?

Exactly. My army is comprised of M&M's, arranged by colour to denote unit type, pressed into bits of blu tack. I'm no snob.

Nobody, nobody, said there wasn't. Everyone knows that. We just want to respect the authors and the game and Hobby we have been loving for years. And if it suddenly get changed to "wololo MKVI for everyone, everywhere, MKVI at Istvaan III for all legionaries" everyone should be unhappy. Because they are altering our hobby for no good reason.
But apparently, "she got a new hat" isn't just a Simpsons' thing...
We'll soon see, but I still have hope the fluff will be respected.
I don't know for this guy, what happened exactly ?
On another topic, the rules I've seen so far look really close to the one we have already. With a few ofc, it was kinda hard to read, not gonna lie. The point costs seem to have raised everywhere I looked, which is a bit surprising

JSG wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
People complaining about "anachronistic" armor marks is the logical end result of the same attitude that led to that WD guy's Son of Horus army getting excoriated. First of all, yes, there was Corvus armor in production by that time. Even Mk. VII was being produced by the Siege of Terra. Secondly, what are you trying to prove? That you're more of a pedant than anyone else?

Exactly. My army is comprised of M&M's, arranged by colour to denote unit type, pressed into bits of blu tack. I'm no snob.

While I am happy to play you, our house rule is that food left on the gaming table is fair game for anyone. Units may be subject to accidental orbital bombardment/kidnappings.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
People complaining about "anachronistic" armor marks is the logical end result of the same attitude that led to that WD guy's Son of Horus army getting excoriated. First of all, yes, there was Corvus armor in production by that time. Even Mk. VII was being produced by the Siege of Terra. Secondly, what are you trying to prove? That you're more of a pedant than anyone else?

I agree. I love adding little details to my miniatures, but I'm gonna use Primaris bodies for my HH marines (if I choose), because they look better than firstborn, and idgaf if some nerd thinks badly of me because of it, I guarantee that nine times out of ten I'm a better painter than the (theoretical) guy that's complaining, and my marines will be better proportioned too.

I think a bigger problem than the community in this case, and my personal titan sized bugbear with GW, is that they refuse to accept their responsibility as conservators of the setting.

Their product really isn't the miniatures, the books, the rules, etc; those are the things they sell; but their actual product that drives fan engagement is the IP (or to fans, "the setting"). Their whole business model, whether they realize it or not, is built around what the early anime industry coined as "the media-mix strategy" where all the products you release are designed to harmoniously build a fictional space where fans want to engage and even create their own derivative content.

The problem that GW has though is that they still treat the IP itself as conveniently malleable window dressing when it should be their main focus. Horus Heresy demonstrates this more intensely than 40k or post-8e 50k because it should be a historical and therefore should have certain facets which are set in stone.

If a player, against the established lore, wants to make some "ahistorical" choices in their army then that's their decision. They can play a non-canonical what-if variant with willing opponents, in the same way that Weird WW2 was spawned out the the desire to play miniatures games set in WW2 with kooky occult additions.

But that doesn't mean GW needs to leave the setting open for someone to just pour out their existing 40k collection and call it canonical. They also shouldn't be completely retconning previous bits of lore to justify their choice of box set contents...

 godardc wrote:
And if it suddenly get changed to "wololo MKVI for everyone, everywhere, MKVI at Istvaan III for all legionaries" everyone should be unhappy.

But that hasn't happened. The most recent lore simply states that Mark VI was in regular use by the end of the heresy and was the most numerous pattern in service at the time of the Siege. There's nothing particularly revolutionary or nonsensical about that.

Seems like a very silly discussion when the history of the Heresy background is just a series of retcons. It wasn't AT ALL some kind of steady build of new details that preserved all previous details. One can have a favorite spot on that continuum, but claiming it was 'right' at this one spot and anything past it is 'wrong' seems pretty egotistical. Although it is pretty consistent with modern geek behavior in its obsessive focus with 'canon' and treating IPs as technical manuals.

Why are we calling Mk.VI a "ret-con"?

GW already sell Mk.III and Mk.IV kits. They're not about to release their big splashy full-supported-by-GW-proper Horus Heresy game using the kits they already sell. Of course they're going to make a new set of 30k Space Marines, and Beakies are classic Marines.

 zedmeister wrote:
Nice image from thehoruseheresy.com with the new contemptor on the right. Spoilered because massive:

Spoiler:

I'm glad someone noticed it. Shows off part of what's going to be in the box, as that tank, the Praetor, and that Contemptor match the mini pics we've seen so far. I'd assume the Termies do, but they're pretty far in the background.

TBH I think Mk.VI was chosen for the box because it's the least useful to most HH players. Imagine if it were replaced with Mk.II, the hoarding would be insane.

JSG wrote:
TBH I think Mk.VI was chosen for the box because it's the least useful to most HH players.

You really think GW sat down and thought "Now what would players of this game like the least? What would be the most useless type of model to give them?".

You actually, truly, in your heart-of-hearts, think that this was an intentional decision they made?

I don't really get the hate on the beaky armor. It was an armor style that was in vogue during the latter years of the Heresy.

One thing I've noticed is a LOT of emphasis on the Titans. In that image above, that's a Warmaster titan on the right, which doesn't have a 28mm scale counterpart, it's only in Titanicus.

Might we see some tighter connections between Adeptus Titanicus and 30k?

The original 1987 space marine release had more beakies than non-beakies.

/Edit - from what I can see, the first "Imperial marine" is from 1986 and was a beaky. and a set called c100 space marines was released after that and was mostly beakies.

I don't think anyone hates MKVI armor. MKVI armor is pretty neat. We are just confused why you would use it to relaunch your game system when there is a better armor choice that EVERY legion had in large quantities that is lacking a kit.

I don't really get the RT examples of MKVI existence. HH has had a solid narrative and lore following the launch of the game system and the black books for 10 years. This is what everyone is basing their arguments off of, the most recent accepted lore that has been added to for the course of a decade. Alongside the BL novels.



ALSO:

This plastic contemptor kit better be fething fantastic if they are removing all weapon options from FW. I dont even know why they're removing contemptor weapons, seeing as every legion has a Contemptor specially made for them, how will those models get weapons now? I HOPE you don't have to purchase a plastic contemptor to get weapons for your resin contemptor, that would just be silly and GW would never do that.......right?

If you want lore reasons to justify the objection you need to be logically consistent, ie you can argue for the original fluff or, like you say here, the most recent, in which case this newest fluff is the one for you, and it's what you're getting. Otherwise, you're just saying "I like this one better" (which is valid, imo, it's usually the reason I have for preferring one thing over another - but you can't use the "This is the most official" objection).

JWBS wrote:
If you want lore reasons to justify the objection you need to be logically consistent, ie you can argue for the original fluff or, like you say here, the most recent, in which case this newest fluff is the one for you, and it's what you're getting. Otherwise, you're just saying "I like this one better" (which is valid, imo, it's usually the reason I have for preferring one thing over another - but you can't use the "This is the most official" objection).

Its literally the official lore.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
This plastic contemptor kit better be fething fantastic if they are removing all weapon options from FW. I dont even know why they're removing contemptor weapons, seeing as every legion has a Contemptor specially made for them, how will those models get weapons now? I HOPE you don't have to purchase a plastic contemptor to get weapons for your resin contemptor, that would just be silly and GW would never do that.......right?

I can quite easily believe that the legion specific bodies will retrospectively become an “upgrade” to the new plastic kit. It’s a bit silly to put the weapons OOP now though, when the new kit hasn’t even been officially previewed, never mind given a release date. It’s not like they’re a bulky or resource intensive item, and I would assume that they’re one of the best sellers (by volume, at least).

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:

JWBS wrote:
If you want lore reasons to justify the objection you need to be logically consistent, ie you can argue for the original fluff or, like you say here, the most recent, in which case this newest fluff is the one for you, and it's what you're getting. Otherwise, you're just saying "I like this one better" (which is valid, imo, it's usually the reason I have for preferring one thing over another - but you can't use the "This is the most official" objection).

Its literally the official lore.

Oh wow you're right. That means the new stuff they're doing won't be official lore.

JWBS wrote:
The general consensus is that resin is more expensive in material, in labour, and in economies of scale.

China disagrees with ya xD

 godardc wrote:
I believe I hate everything so far. This release is a catastrophic failure for me, from the obvious retcons to the people accepting them like they had always been there, the unnecessary change of edition, the models and kits that aren't gonna be in the new edition, the end of the black books... If this proves a single thing, it's that there is never enough gatekeeping

Gatekeeping is poison. What a stupid post.