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.

Echoing the sentiments on the head, and both arms.

Can't say I'm a fan of either head, so a headswap for sure. The volkite feels like it should be pointing out from the body, not inwards. The sword's gotta come down from that position.

Not my favourite, but it's one of the few times I've flat out not enjoyed a model lately.

The more I look at it, the less I like it.

That crest in particular is horrendous on either version (the helmetless one just happens to be worse). That and the arm are an easy enough fix but how the vanilla posing got past the design approval is beyond me.

New Praetor looks better than a first one with the exception of heads, which are horrible both. Hopefully mentioned 'heads' options will give at least one that could be used.

 Tim the Biovore wrote:
I find the "I have a sword" pose is a bit more tolerable when his head is positioned to make it look like he's signalling troops rather than waving it at the enemy

When placed side to side like this, the Traitors' is looking chic and the loyalist is looking granpa derp

Dominion Zephon is way superior to this yellow abomination in terms of pose.

But if the kit comes with both models, there might be cool kitbash opportunities. Those street sweaper brushes gotta go tho, I'll snip em right the flock off on everything.

Not a fan of either Both suffer from random purposeless bling that distracts from the potential good details of the models. And the less I say about the cyber plume crest the better. I understand that it may be that the beaky beak may come off separately and that it likely is attached to the back of the helmet in that case (unlike previous examples of helmets)... but that's not the first impression it makes IMO. These are two big misses for me personally unlike many recent FW characters and the plastic Fafnir.

The "I'm in charge" plume doesn't bother me honestly, but the more I see the plumes the more I want to see what MkVI with batwings look likes.

Minis good and the crest on the bare head is peak Warhammer. The only problem is the sword arm looks cramped and should be out to the side. Not a fan of the holes in the sword either and feel it would have been a really nice classic sword otherwise but that's just personal taste.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I knew the Imperial Fists were famous for their fortifications but, until seeing Fafnir Rann and this new chap, I didn’t know they were also renowned for their magnificent beards.

What are beards if not fortifications for your face?

Plumes are bad enough but I'm really done with the giant ponytails !! Do you think Ragnar and Abaddon have sleepovers where they brush each others 5-foot pony tails half the night as they share gossip ? :-/

Tactical Rock (TM) aside, I quite like the model. I think he will do well leading an Emperor's Children assault squad.

Something about the new ostentatious ornamentation I really like. Especially in purple.

I love it, that mustache is spectacular.

I honestly don't get people who look at these minis and complain about them.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I love it, that mustache is spectacular.

I honestly don't get people who look at these minis and complain about them.

I know right? It’s almost as if different people like different things …

chaos0xomega wrote:
I love it, that mustache is spectacular.

I honestly don't get people who look at these minis and complain about them.

Normally a good 'stache can get me to forgive a multitude of flaws but it's not enough on this one for me.

I don't like the crests either, but it also is a complete non-issue and it is silly to complain about it as they're incredibly easy to clip off.

 Boringstuff wrote:
Yes, but infantry mounted weapons will always be weaker/shorter ranged than non-infantry weapons. Infantry is also easier to destory in seige scenarios due to the shorter range.

Sure I think the rapier weapons are fitting for seige stuff as they are small enough to be manueaverable, but able to mount heavier weapons.

As for the Tyrants, I just wish they made them carrying some kind of two-handed heavy weapon (i.e. near rapier grade) rather than back-mounted missile launchers (which is hardly unique in 30k/40k).

Sometimes I wonder if using DG rules for the chem flamers would be a better fluff choice then running IW rules.

Lascannons are the same range on every single unit in the game.
Tyrant Siege are one of the two units to have back-mounted missile launchers in HH, the other being a direct copy of them but Ultramarines (that is specifically stated as such in the Fulementaris background BTW).
IW aren't overly into chemical weapons though since they (again) don't break fortresses.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Havocs are not included in the leaks so far, so it's up in the air if they're even a unit anymore.

The leaks are apparently up to two-year-old play testing books, the EB units are all going to 2.0 and the No Model No Rules policy doesn't apply in this situation as there are many units that have already been "leaked" that don't follow this policy. I'm erring on the side of the rumours aren't true.

Both heads are bad. They've got crests and topknots (essentially)?

Also the pose is somehow a worse version of the Squatty McTippyToes captain in gravis armor from dark imperium.



The Sons of Horus praetor works better, giving him a solid immovable object look, despite being overwrought with ornament. This IF guy just stinks.

Credit on the 'stache, though.

Wow.. they managed to design a Beakie that I don't like!

Definitely a design study lesson in 'less is more' was missed for that one, I think. It's a busy mess.

The model itself is... fine, but my god every time I see a IF, it amplifies the parts I like least about this new HH art style. They yellows make it all look just so.... plastic? Enameled? Glossy? Waxy? I'm not sure what to call it but Fafnir had it as well and it just doesn't look good to me. It's kind of there on the SoH guy, but it's nowhere nearly as obvious.

*shrugs*

I like 'em.

I like the Fist more than the SoH, but I dont really like either of them all that much. They are just, fine I guess.

These things are all super subjective aren't they.

I guess there is a particular style of design that has been implemented, which you either like or don't like.

For me, it definitely feels very 'modern 40k' or 'modern AoS' with a very busy design, lots of accessories, not a natural resting place for the eye because there is so much taking place all over the miniature. An explosion of sculpting detail that is impressive technically, as a sculpt, but feels OTT.

I am sounding like some sort of art critic tosser

Are people realizing that the new Horus Heresy has chosen a look? In retrospect its going to become clear that the first praetor we saw is very much in line with how the designs of the Horus Heresy are.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I love it, that mustache is spectacular.

I honestly don't get people who look at these minis and complain about them.

I hate it, that plume is terrible.

I honestly don't get people who look at these minis and lavish praise upon them.

The unhelmeted head is the most absurdly awesome thing I've seen out of GW since the Devlin Waugh rogue trader from Blackstone Fortress.

Hm. Give him a different helmet, swap the belly eagle for a big Horus eye, and change the sword to a halberd, and I could see it as a decent SoH character.

I'd definitely like an article where both minis are painted in different Legion schemes to see how they work. Maybe even some tinkering with bits so they'd feel more Legion specific.

What me wonders on the miniature previews:

GW said we get all the April previews of Miniatures which will be 4 previews. On the teased box content, we had two Praetors, the MkVI Squad and the Spartan, which are 4 things. But we had the first Praetor and the tactical squad in the same week, so all four kinds of miniatures would be covered in 3 week.

What will they preview in week 4? Is there something the leaks didn't showed?

RazorEdge wrote:
What me wonders on the miniature previews:

GW said we get all the April previews of Miniatures which will be 4 previews. On the teased box content, we had two Praetors, the MkVI Squad and the Spartan, which are 4 things. But we had the first Praetor and the tactical squad in the same week, so all four kinds of miniatures are covered in 3 week.

What will they preview in week 4? Is there something the leaks didn't showed?

The new plastic Contemptor?

I forgot the Dreadnought....

Thanks

Awful head. Looks like they were designing a psychic hood for Librarian and the CAD files got mixed up along the way. The crest especially is bafflingly bad.

Pose is awkward but looks a bit more "Follow meeeee!" in the video so might just be the angle.

Eavy Metal paintjob is as soulless as ever and not even the attempt at weathering saved it.

RazorEdge wrote:
I forgot the Dreadnought....

Thanks

HOW!?
That plastic contemptor is hands down the most important release GW will have this year. Unless they put out a plastic Leviathan, then... hard choices will have to be made.