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.

Froim 4chan:

There will be also a set with different weapon options (in the same fashion like for Necromunda) which couldn't fit into the regulary Horus Heresy sprues.

Also a little correction about the rumor yesterday:

The Vehicle Sprues include options for MkIII and MkVI armours, not MkII...

I think calling them limited pose models is probably more accurate. You'll get a set of pre-defined poses with hopefully enough variety for you to not notice.

As to the special and heavy weapons, I suspect we'll probably see them either released as resin or plastic upgrades. Magnetisation will probably harder as each set will be keyed to one of the set poses.

I assume the MkVI kit will have 10 bodies, not 5, due largely to how HH squads work.

tneva82 wrote:
Remove some, add others.

But nothing gets added. The Crusade allowed each Legion to find its rhythm and modus operandi, learning from their experiences and their fellow Legions. By going back the Legions gain nothing and in some cases (Word Bearers) lose everything.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I assume the MkVI kit will have 10 bodies, not 5, due largely to how HH squads work.

But it also isn't the case for some newer Marine kits. So who knows.

 Crimson wrote:
But whatever. GW makes only monopose models now. And we don't anymore have useful terminology for distinguishing between different types of models GW makes, as they all have been defined 'monopose'. Happy?

Now you're just being melodramatic.

RazorEdge wrote:
Popped up on 4chan:

There exist plans for separate codex books for EVERY Space Marine Legion which will released over the next years.

I don't buy this. That's a ridiculous amount of books for factions that aren't THAT different from one another. I just can't see each Legion getting its own big release. And it seems like it would be extremely messy for these books to be released over...years and years...while new core units and such are (inevitably) happening.

IF however this is true...Heresy players liking their streamlined faction rules better hold onto their hats, because things probably would go more the way of 40K in that instance.

The problem with the monopose stuff is its not as fun creatively when building, it requires attention and dare I say it a bit a of anxiety on the part of the builder. The most annoying part with marines or guard back in the day was 3 point connections, basically the arms were often the only pieces that needed that extra level of attention to pair up properly but everything else was usually pretty modular outside of key wargear pieces. I would hope the new marines don't follow the trend of monopose/keyed builds like necromunda stuff. The weapons pack at least at least added some breathing room but still, the old way of building a marine would be preferable if we're to suffer the new scale. First thing I want to see is how they'll look with anything other than a beakie helmet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zedmeister wrote:
I think calling them limited pose models is probably more accurate. You'll get a set of pre-defined poses with hopefully enough variety for you to not notice.

As to the special and heavy weapons, I suspect we'll probably see them either released as resin or plastic upgrades. Magnetisation will probably harder as each set will be keyed to one of the set poses.

The heavy weapons is where I don't mind monpose/limited pose as much because there's only so many ways to meaningfully hold an autocannon or lascannon, especially if its shoulder mounted.

Ah, the ol' monopose argument, where everyone's definition of monopose is different and nobody can agree on anything and at the end of the day nothing was gained.

Only case where it bothers me is when a sgt is a little too dramatically posed, like the Sisters of Battle. Makes it tough to distinguish other squad leaders.

In every other case, I've been pleased by the variety I can get out of GW's kits thus far. Yes, even kits as horridly 'monoposed' as primaris intercessors.

drbored wrote:
Ah, the ol' monopose argument, where everyone's definition of monopose is different and nobody can agree on anything and at the end of the day nothing was gained.

It's more that there are still people here who insist that this kit is no different to this kit, or that there isn't a marked difference between when sprues looked like this, and when they started looking like this.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

drbored wrote:
Ah, the ol' monopose argument, where everyone's definition of monopose is different and nobody can agree on anything and at the end of the day nothing was gained.

It's more that there are still people here who insist that this kit is no different to this kit, or that there isn't a marked difference between when sprues looked like this, and when they started looking like this.

Deathguard are definitely the most limited sprues I've seen in the game outside of pushfit minis. Honestly I usually see most of the "monopose" claims being aimed at Primaris but most of those models have decent posing options, just no built in waist swivel.

As long as these new Minis are just fixed torso +legs but otherwize have swappable arms, heads and backpacks it's okay. I admit I prefer being able to pose the torso, too as it allows for more interesting poses, but GW seems to have moved away from that.

I hate the "complete right arm and the left hand on the weapons" in the CSM sprue...

Honestly a bit disappointed we're not getting another Betrayal at Calth/Burning of Prospero boxed game as part of this and instead a more traditional starter set. In the back of my mind I had hoped we might get a reworking of the original Horus Heresy board game (that FFG redid in the 00s) depicting the Siege of Terra to tie in with the book series.

The fixed waists on Intercessors and other modern kits doesn't bother me at all. This isn't the first time we've been through this. I loved my RTB01 plastic kit back in the day, with it's individually poseable torsos, legs, arms, etc. And then the Imperial Space Marines box set came out, with complete metal abdomen, torso and heads fixed, with plastic arms to be added on. As I remember, that template was retained for the mid-90s Chaos Marines, until they went back to the modular approach with the late 90s plastics.

The thing is, as great as that modularity was, the newer kits, with their fixed waists (but separate heads) look amazing in comparison to their immediate predecessors. So I can't really complain. Some individual weapon options may have been lost here and there over time, but in terms of ending up with a great looking model at the end of the process, I don't see anything aesthetically or functionally being lost in the modern kits.

 gorgon wrote:
I don't buy this. That's a ridiculous amount of books for factions that aren't THAT different from one another. I just can't see each Legion getting its own big release. And it seems like it would be extremely messy for these books to be released over...years and years...while new core units and such are (inevitably) happening.

I buy this for a few reasons:
1) It gives GW a stream to sell more book and card bloat
2) It allows them to slowly expand out the legions with new units / characters in a contained package, thereby avoiding the no model no rules scenario that they appear to be applying now to the heresy (RIP Bligh and creativity in geneal)

Now, to be truly cynical, you have to wonder if the expression above will occur alongside campaign books which will also contain new, likely generic, units.

 ekwatts wrote:
I don't see anything aesthetically or functionally being lost in the modern kits.

With so many ways to build these and all.

Here's to Iron Hands being the first Legion to get a book. That way with power creep in each following book they don't have to worry about updating Ferrus Manus . By the time they get to the 6th book they will need to revisit the first book again to correct wording and how new Legion rules interact with the older books.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
I don't see anything aesthetically or functionally being lost in the modern kits.

With so many ways to build these and all.

Spoiler:

As opposed to all of the old multiparts where you could build whatever you wanted, provided you were okay with it looking like trash!

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Death-Guard-Blightlord-Terminators-2020

Can you imagine rotating the torsos on most of the terminators and still making them look appropriate?

I'm pretty sure it'd be very difficult to modularize lots of features in the DG range and still make them look cohesive.

To me the models look fantastic and I'd take that over some half-assed posing options. I'd quite enjoy Thousand Sons who were modeled with dust spilling out or holes in them even if it meant I couldn't pose them.

Maybe my purchases are ruining that side of the hobby for some people and I am sorry about that, but I have a difficult time "getting it" when people talk about what I think are very minor things.

These new models aren't ugly or anything, but you'd only buy every kit once and then look for 3rd party alternatives if you don't want a Clone army while with the old style you'd have several boxes and every Marine/ Ork what have you looking different. At least that's how I'm doing it (and GW seems to have guessed that as well that's why they made 30 different new Plague Marines ).

I'm pretty sure it'd be very difficult to modularize lots of features in the DG range and still make them look cohesive.

It really isn't. Just leave out the dumb tentacles crawling out from between gaps and focus on the detail of the _armor plates_. Face on a shin guard, teeth on a belly plate, spike on a pauldron? General cracks, bullet holes and corrosion? All real easy to make modular.

Torso fronts, arms and pauldrons for power armor are generally separate pieces anyway. Adding a couple left or right leg outer armor options isn't that much.

They went far too overboard with details (especially compared to old plague marines) and given the history and nature of the legion (stoic and straightforward), all this... cruft... is wildly out of character.

No, there's no fething way you could twist those torsos, even if the torso front plate was a separate piece. I'll take better looking models over models where you can rotate the torso tyvm.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These new models aren't ugly or anything, but you'd only buy every kit once and then look for 3rd party alternatives if you don't want a Clone army while with the old style you'd have several boxes and every Marine/ Ork what have you looking different.

Well, that's just not true at all. Why do people keep parroting this narrative that all the pre-8th kits are super customisable when at best the differences between one unit of Tacticals and another will be the Sergeant and special/heavy weapons i.e exactly the same things that are in the newer kits.

JWBS wrote:
No, there's no fething way you could twist those torsos, even if the torso front plate was a separate piece. I'll take better looking models over models where you can rotate the torso tyvm.

The older style Nurgle Forgeworld models were much better. The torsos fit on standard chaos marine legs allowing them to be repositioned. Seemed like a loss at that point though as you had wonderfully sculpted torso (I think the heads were part of the torso, but it's been a while since I owned them), and the arms were also plain chaos marine arms. I wish they had expanded on that line over the new plastics. The plastics are "Fine", but the spike protrusions and huge mouths with gigantic teeth look like playskool toys compared to the resin models.

 Gert wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These new models aren't ugly or anything, but you'd only buy every kit once and then look for 3rd party alternatives if you don't want a Clone army while with the old style you'd have several boxes and every Marine/ Ork what have you looking different.

Well, that's just not true at all. Why do people keep parroting this narrative that all the pre-8th kits are super customisable when at best the differences between one unit of Tacticals and another will be the Sergeant and special/heavy weapons i.e exactly the same things that are in the newer kits.

Umm, I'm actually generally fine and even happy in many cases with the single-piece bodies + torsoes, but there really is a difference, especially with Marines. The Badab War was what got me back into 40k in part because of the emphasis in many cases on mixes of armor, and it's rare that any given Marine or CSM model in my collection is made from fewer than three different kits unless it's a monopose or equivalent (which I do sometimes use for cheap filler). I don't esp. care about the poses, but Marine part cross-compatability is a huge part of what I find rewarding about modeling anything in the game. I imagine that for many gamers it isn't a big thing, but my collections actively mixes everything from RT through 8th and fits my vision of both imperial and chaos forces stretched thin (and in the latter case less mutated and spiky than GW's vision), and the loss of those combinations does actually affect my choices. No, it isn't immense, but it's also not nothing.

Just because something isn't relevant to your experience doesn't mean it isn't relevant to others'. People who disagree with you might actually have an informed reason for their disagreement, and aren't just uncritically repeating something they heard.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These new models aren't ugly or anything, but you'd only buy every kit once and then look for 3rd party alternatives if you don't want a Clone army while with the old style you'd have several boxes and every Marine/ Ork what have you looking different.

Well, that's just not true at all. Why do people keep parroting this narrative that all the pre-8th kits are super customisable when at best the differences between one unit of Tacticals and another will be the Sergeant and special/heavy weapons i.e exactly the same things that are in the newer kits.

Umm, I'm actually generally fine and even happy in many cases with the single-piece bodies + torsoes, but there really is a difference, especially with Marines. The Badab War was what got me back into 40k in part because of the emphasis in many cases on mixes of armor, and it's rare that any given Marine or CSM model in my collection is made from fewer than three different kits unless it's a monopose or equivalent (which I do sometimes use for cheap filler). I don't esp. care about the poses, but Marine part cross-compatability is a huge part of what I find rewarding about modeling anything in the game. I imagine that for many gamers it isn't a big thing, but my collections actively mixes everything from RT through 8th and fits my vision of both imperial and chaos forces stretched thin (and in the latter case less mutated and spiky than GW's vision), and the loss of those combinations does actually affect my choices. No, it isn't immense, but it's also not nothing.

Just because something isn't relevant to your experience doesn't mean it isn't relevant to others'. People who disagree with you might actually have an informed reason for their disagreement, and aren't just uncritically repeating something they heard.

The cross compatibility is a good point, the plastic 30k marines worked really well with weapon and shoulder swaps, lots conversion potential. That's a lot more difficult with something that has to have details hacked off or cut and sanded.

At least they kept the mk6 relatively free of frilly bits and it's pretty clean overall,

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
I don't see anything aesthetically or functionally being lost in the modern kits.

With so many ways to build these and all.

This is the very definition of cherry picking.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Umm, I'm actually generally fine and even happy in many cases with the single-piece bodies + torsoes, but there really is a difference, especially with Marines. The Badab War was what got me back into 40k in part because of the emphasis in many cases on mixes of armor, and it's rare that any given Marine or CSM model in my collection is made from fewer than three different kits unless it's a monopose or equivalent (which I do sometimes use for cheap filler). I don't esp. care about the poses, but Marine part cross-compatability is a huge part of what I find rewarding about modeling anything in the game. I imagine that for many gamers it isn't a big thing, but my collections actively mixes everything from RT through 8th and fits my vision of both imperial and chaos forces stretched thin (and in the latter case less mutated and spiky than GW's vision), and the loss of those combinations does actually affect my choices. No, it isn't immense, but it's also not nothing.

Just because something isn't relevant to your experience doesn't mean it isn't relevant to others'. People who disagree with you might actually have an informed reason for their disagreement, and aren't just uncritically repeating something they heard.

Cool but that's not the point of this criticism. The specific thing people keep saying is that two boxes of the same kit will be entirely different when that isn't the case at all. What you have is 3 different boxes (say one Tactical, one MkIV and one MkIII) and you've mixed and matched the parts from those 3 different boxes to make 3 units with models with visual distinction.
Next time take your own advice and read what was written.

 Gert wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Umm, I'm actually generally fine and even happy in many cases with the single-piece bodies + torsoes, but there really is a difference, especially with Marines. The Badab War was what got me back into 40k in part because of the emphasis in many cases on mixes of armor, and it's rare that any given Marine or CSM model in my collection is made from fewer than three different kits unless it's a monopose or equivalent (which I do sometimes use for cheap filler). I don't esp. care about the poses, but Marine part cross-compatability is a huge part of what I find rewarding about modeling anything in the game. I imagine that for many gamers it isn't a big thing, but my collections actively mixes everything from RT through 8th and fits my vision of both imperial and chaos forces stretched thin (and in the latter case less mutated and spiky than GW's vision), and the loss of those combinations does actually affect my choices. No, it isn't immense, but it's also not nothing.

Just because something isn't relevant to your experience doesn't mean it isn't relevant to others'. People who disagree with you might actually have an informed reason for their disagreement, and aren't just uncritically repeating something they heard.

Cool but that's not the point of this criticism. The specific thing people keep saying is that two boxes of the same kit will be entirely different when that isn't the case at all. What you have is 3 different boxes (say one Tactical, one MkIV and one MkIII) and you've mixed and matched the parts from those 3 different boxes to make 3 units with models with visual distinction.
Next time take your own advice and read what was written.

If the 'specific thing people keep saying is two boxes of the same kit,' why are you bringing up three different boxes?