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.

 GaroRobe wrote:

JWBS wrote:
That mohawk head is pretty great.

I think the head itself is good. It's just the mohawk bit that looks really strange. We haven't had anything like that before (that I know of) in 40k, and since they market it as as "generic" praetor, it seems a weird choice for someone who runs Night Lords, or Iron Warriors, or Iron Hands. I said it on the previous page, but it looks like its something from AOS. The stormcast have a few bare heads that have weird mohawk/ponytails, so it's not my favorite thing to see added to a praetor

Obviously, it'll be easy enough to clip off, but its still a weird choice.

I think I'll try him as White Scars (and I'm also sure that's a completely original thought!). I'm going to paint up some WS, BA, LW, SoH for sure when I get my sets bought, maybe some others too, and I think this head will look nice as WS.

The pose is fine apart the arm lifting the sword. The elbow joint looks a bit off and the thick cables make it look even weirder.

I wonder if this could be a dual kit containing the two praetor models, designed so that you could mix and match some of the bits like the arms, chest plates and the belt buckles? Probably not, but it would be cool.

Not a big fan, though there are parts I like. Really wish the pose matched this art though:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
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.

GW's ultra clean paint scheme has a bad tendency to bring out the toyetic quality in models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
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.

GW's ultra clean paint scheme has a bad tendency to bring out the toyetic quality in models.

It also has a tendency to bring out the armchair Da Vincis.

Anyways, rumor is that there's going to be a plastic army set for each faction as their books drop.

 warboss wrote:

 Gert wrote:
You know there's this magical thing you can do where you just don't buy the model? Amazing right? You can just not do it. It's that easy! Hell, you could even buy an entirely different model to use as your Praetor. There is literally nothing stopping you from buying what you want to buy. Stop being prats and whinging that new players aren't going to cake their models in 200 layers of FW weathering powders because a lot of us never did.

I recommend you start a blog. If you do, then and only then do you actually have the right to dictate what constitutes wrongthink on a discussion forum. Or just tweet your thoughts instead and just wait with baited breath to block.

As someone with a very infrequently updated hobby blog: do the thing that sparks joy, but don't go out of your way to yuk other people's yum.

Or as Bill and Ted put it: Be excellent to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
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.

GW's ultra clean paint scheme has a bad tendency to bring out the toyetic quality in models.

It also has a tendency to bring out the armchair Da Vincis.

Anyways, rumor is that there's going to be a plastic army set for each faction as their books drop.

I was thinking of how bad Primaris looked at launch in GW's clean style but a little weathering or a less toyetic blue and the models looked way better.

'Eavy Metal lets you see all the details but that doesn't help sell the model as a "real person" if that makes any sense to anyone who isn't me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on a different note it might be me reading the Night Lords omnibus but I'm curious to see what batwings on MkVI helmets would look like.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

As someone with a very infrequently updated hobby blog: do the thing that sparks joy, but don't go out of your way to yuk other people's yum.

As the owner of an almost never updated hobby blog (as of the start of the pandemic), your reasoning is sound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I was thinking of how bad Primaris looked at launch in GW's clean style but a little weathering or a less toyetic blue and the models looked way better.

I actually liked the rollout of the primaris in the clean style. It fit their fresh from the factory image and backstory. Grizzled companies engaged in the centuries long Great Crusade? Less so IMO. But as you said, paint your tiny toy soldiers however you like and let others do the same.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I was thinking of how bad Primaris looked at launch in GW's clean style but a little weathering or a less toyetic blue and the models looked way better.

You are using 'toyetic' wrong. Toyetic means a subject matter has potential as a toy. Iron Man and his many suits are toyetic. Space Marines in their iconic armor are toyetic. The more appropriate word you should use - as it seams you are casting about for a pejorative - is "toylike".

ST

 GaroRobe wrote:
I think the head itself is good. It's just the mohawk bit that looks really strange. We haven't had anything like that before (that I know of) in 40k, and since they market it as as "generic" praetor, it seems a weird choice for someone who runs Night Lords, or Iron Warriors, or Iron Hands. I said it on the previous page, but it looks like its something from AOS.

We didn't in 40K, but funnily enough, did in HH - this hat looks exactly identical to multiple Blanche pics, say this Fulgrim one (except crest instead of dumb spike):


I am kinda shocked this is criticized so heavily, usually gakkiest Blanche scribbles are defended to death here, even when they result in terribad models (*cough* Veridian *cough*) so seeing OK model dunked on is somewhat weird. What is not surprising, though, is gatekeeping herd brigade not knowing past lore or art of HH at all and bashing things that look more like old HH and actually less like 40K as the latter

If this looks like AoS to you, it's because Stormcast look was heavily inspired by Blanche gakky "art" too - and only now with 3rd edition of AoS they finally start looking like something remotely practical and heroic instead of bucket of spikes thrown into a blender. Same source, but the designs were made years if not decades ago, long before AoS or HH the game were actually a thing.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Ya they totally nailed the 30k aesthetic again....

Spoiler:

This is bait, isn't it? Otherwise you didn't pick one of the worst possible examples to demolish your own point - both models have identical design language, with the difference being one being actually good model and paint scheme and the other being gakky FW "cast" with terrible dwarf anatomy and details, quickly dunked in wood stainer twice - you could achieve totally identical results if you dipped plastic mini in solvent to soften edges then rolled it in mud. Then it would be 'pure' HH, eh?

If anything, the model that looks more 40K is the one on the right - I remember it being bashed for having ""40K aquilas"", ""trims"" and ""pose"" - it's hilarious to see it now paraded as 'true' HH and the model actually true to HH roots being bashed as 40K

 Crablezworth wrote:
Love that model, and also a great example of less is more in terms of details and decorations

You say "less" because of lazy, 3.5 colors palette. It's almost monochrome. Just look at the gun, one greenish blob. I'd bet that if new model was painted this detail-less way and your praetor new GW style, you'd be saying the first is the lesser-more one, and the latter over-designed junk. It's amazing how people can't look past paint and say things that are objectively false just because painter emphasized or muted them.

It's especially funny (and sad) because if anything, old HH depictions had pristine armour, as it was freshly made (even in Blanche depictions, at that), while the 40K one were dirty and broken from lack of maintenance, resources, and 10.000 years of wear. HH lemmings just latched to paintings of one (really wrong from fluff perspective) FW painter doing stuff in 'historical' style, when really, current GW paint jobs are how it was always supposed to look like. Bright and shiny, like everything during Great Crusade.

But again, it's not like gatekeeping brigade actually knows the fluff (or cares for it), it's just always muh dumping on plastic models/GW paint styles to cope with wasting tons of money uselessly on objectively worse minis that were then further degraded by really subpar paint jobs that are hilariously wrong even on WW2 models (seriously, I saw a seminar once on difference how people imagine/paint dirty/worn out 'realistic' WW2 tanks and how they really looked like, and FW "style" was rubbished as laughable nonsense even in it by actual WW2 experts)...

 Soundtheory wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I was thinking of how bad Primaris looked at launch in GW's clean style but a little weathering or a less toyetic blue and the models looked way better.

You are using 'toyetic' wrong. Toyetic means a subject matter has potential as a toy. Iron Man and his many suits are toyetic. Space Marines in their iconic armor are toyetic. The more appropriate word you should use - as it seams you are casting about for a pejorative - is "toylike".

ST

Meh. You got the meaning so good enough.

I just don't understand the negative reactions to the Praetors. They are *so similar* to the standard FW line - and where they deviate, they honestly seem like sensible design choices, to me at least.

The relentless negativity on this forum is soul destroying. God almighty. It's no wonder most of the online hobby discussion has migrated to Reddit. This place is just insufferable sometimes.

I understand that not everyone will like every release. But Christ almighty, you don't have to rain all over everyone else's parade. That kind of attitude is so exhausting.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
I just don't understand the negative reactions to the Praetors. They are *so similar* to the standard FW line - and where they deviate, they honestly seem like sensible design choices, to me at least.

The relentless negativity on this forum is soul destroying. God almighty. It's no wonder most of the online hobby discussion has migrated to Reddit. This place is just insufferable sometimes.

I understand that not everyone will like every release. But Christ almighty, you don't have to rain all over everyone else's parade. That kind of attitude is so exhausting.

I can understand many of the criticisms, but there's something uniquely irritating about Dakka's fusion of relentless negativity combined with smugness.

JWBS wrote:

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
I just don't understand the negative reactions to the Praetors. They are *so similar* to the standard FW line - and where they deviate, they honestly seem like sensible design choices, to me at least.

The relentless negativity on this forum is soul destroying. God almighty. It's no wonder most of the online hobby discussion has migrated to Reddit. This place is just insufferable sometimes.

I understand that not everyone will like every release. But Christ almighty, you don't have to rain all over everyone else's parade. That kind of attitude is so exhausting.

I can understand many of the criticisms, but there's something uniquely irritating about Dakka's fusion of relentless negativity combined with smugness.

I can get this. I definitely see a few too many posts that aren't "I don't like this, and this is why," and are more "I don't like this, so let me tell you why you are wrong for liking it, and personally insult you while I'm doing so."

I totally agree. It’s hard to post anything on Dakka without somebody deciding the best response is to attack you. I’ll admit, I’ve fallen into that trap myself because one finds oneself getting sucked in to that Dakka mindset.

I keep seriously thinking about giving up Dakka completely because of its toxicity. I even deleted all of my pics off Dakka because I didn’t want my work on this platform anymore.

I think I need a lie down.

Gotta love that fulgrim pic, bigger bullets than barrel on that gun

Dakka is a discussion forum. It seems to me its the right place to discuss things!

Providing people are being constructive in their criticism, or praise for that matter, I don't have any problem with it.

I think the IF/DG comparison photo, whilst perhaps cherry-picking, definitely shows a stylistic change from some of the earlier, much more utilitarian looking sculpts. To me it does feel closer to a 40k-marine look than a 30k marine.

That being said he is painted as an Imperial Fist and so the over-ostentation is perhaps a better fit. I'll wait to see what some of the other new sculpts look like, hopefully they will tone it down a little and keep some of the traditional 30k style (although once again thats a subjective opinion on my part)

 Gert wrote:
I didn't see you guys dogpiling Wha-Mu even though they did the same thing I did.

'Cause he didn't do the same thing.

He said he didn't like it.

You gave us some White Knight highlights, like "If you don't like it don't buy it!" and "You're all just whinging!". And then one post later you're calling HH players "miserable trolls", after acting like the hard-done-by victim in all this. Terrific stuff.

Wha-Mu said what he thought.
You attempted to tell everyone what they thought was wrong.

Learn the difference.

Pacific wrote:Dakka is a discussion forum. It seems to me its the right place to discuss things!

Providing people are being constructive in their criticism, or praise for that matter, I don't have any problem with it.

I don’t think anybody would accuse you of adding to the general negativity of the site Pacific. You’ve always seemed like a very reasonable poster to me.

On the other hand...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Learn the difference.

This is a timely example of Dakka’s toxicity.

I said I liked 'em, and didn't call anyone out for not liking them, so...

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

The relentless negativity on this forum is soul destroying. God almighty. It's no wonder most of the online hobby discussion has migrated to Reddit. This place is just insufferable sometimes.

Yeah the problem is that reddit is a domain of forced optimism and endless positivity.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You gave us some White Knight highlights, like "If you don't like it don't buy it!" and "You're all just whinging!".

"Everyone who disagrees with people who don't like GW stuff is a White Knight", another HBMC classic.
As for the "whinging" part, what would you call people making up standards of painting for HH and then doom-mongering that new people will ruin the aesthetic of the game by not adhering to said made-up standards? Sounds a lot like whinging to me chief.

And then one post later you're calling HH players "miserable trolls", after acting like the hard-done-by victim in all this. Terrific stuff.

Actually, I said they were reinforcing the stereotype. There is a difference but considering you have a habit of misreading my posts to suit your agenda I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Wha-Mu said what he thought.
You attempted to tell everyone what they thought was wrong.

Nope, just told them they didn't have to buy it if they didn't like it and not to pretend HH has specific painting standards or to make up boogeymen to get mad about.

If anyone is trying to play the victim it's the people who have spent the better part of the last year constantly complaining about every single thing GW has released for HH 2.0 so far from the MkVI nonsense to making up as many boogeymen as they can to justify keeping new players out of HH.

 blood reaper wrote:

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

The relentless negativity on this forum is soul destroying. God almighty. It's no wonder most of the online hobby discussion has migrated to Reddit. This place is just insufferable sometimes.

Yeah the problem is that reddit is a domain of forced optimism and endless positivity.

Indeed. Reddit is toxic in its enforced positivity, you get downvoted just by having opinions that go against the typical hivemind. Give me Dakkas any day of the week thx

On the topic of these prateors. I don't have the slightest idea as on what people think looks HH-esque, but as someone who grew up with MkVI Corvus armour, I dont feel like either of these armours honour the design language of the originals. The prominently tacticool heritage is mixed in with too knightly, plate armour elements. Original Corvus still feels like a scifi design (late 70's/early 80's anime inspired maybe but nonetheless), whereas these artificer armours just want to add too much elements that do not have that minimalistic feel to them.

I feel like the traitor Captain is still the better looking of the two, as a Space Marine HQ model per se. But really think they do not feel like Corvus suits. Even Primaris Mark X feels more like corvus than these. It's almost as if the designers would have preferred to make both of these miniatures wear MkII/MkIII than Corvus, and kicked and screamed through every step of the design process.

It's busy for sure but I think it makes the distinction of Artificer Armour pretty clear. You can see that at some point it was MkVI but with time and the owner's personal additions, it's something different. It will work for some Legions but not for others but that always seems to be the case with the various HH armours anyway.
I have just realised that for all intents and purposes, both models have the exact same equipment. Power Weapon/Paragon Blade, Artificer Armour, Iron Halo and a Volkite Charger.

 Irbis wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Ya they totally nailed the 30k aesthetic again....

Spoiler:

This is bait, isn't it? Otherwise you didn't pick one of the worst possible examples to demolish your own point - both models have identical design language, with the difference being one being actually good model and paint scheme and the other being gakky FW "cast" with terrible dwarf anatomy and details, quickly dunked in wood stainer twice - you could achieve totally identical results if you dipped plastic mini in solvent to soften edges then rolled it in mud. Then it would be 'pure' HH, eh?

If anything, the model that looks more 40K is the one on the right - I remember it being bashed for having ""40K aquilas"", ""trims"" and ""pose"" - it's hilarious to see it now paraded as 'true' HH and the model actually true to HH roots being bashed as 40K

 Crablezworth wrote:
Love that model, and also a great example of less is more in terms of details and decorations

You say "less" because of lazy, 3.5 colors palette. It's almost monochrome. Just look at the gun, one greenish blob. I'd bet that if new model was painted this detail-less way and your praetor new GW style, you'd be saying the first is the lesser-more one, and the latter over-designed junk. It's amazing how people can't look past paint and say things that are objectively false just because painter emphasized or muted them.

It's especially funny (and sad) because if anything, old HH depictions had pristine armour, as it was freshly made (even in Blanche depictions, at that), while the 40K one were dirty and broken from lack of maintenance, resources, and 10.000 years of wear. HH lemmings just latched to paintings of one (really wrong from fluff perspective) FW painter doing stuff in 'historical' style, when really, current GW paint jobs are how it was always supposed to look like. Bright and shiny, like everything during Great Crusade.

But again, it's not like gatekeeping brigade actually knows the fluff (or cares for it), it's just always muh dumping on plastic models/GW paint styles to cope with wasting tons of money uselessly on objectively worse minis that were then further degraded by really subpar paint jobs that are hilariously wrong even on WW2 models (seriously, I saw a seminar once on difference how people imagine/paint dirty/worn out 'realistic' WW2 tanks and how they really looked like, and FW "style" was rubbished as laughable nonsense even in it by actual WW2 experts)...

Bravo, fantastically put. Exalted.

 tauist wrote:
whereas these artificer armours just want to add too much elements that do not have that minimalistic feel to them.

But that's exactly the point of artificer armor in the fluff. It's a specifically customized suit of armor to the wearer's preference that is further embellished and decorated by the original user that is eventually kept as a relic by the Chapter/Legion. These new plastics actually reflect that.

 Pacific wrote:
Dakka is a discussion forum. It seems to me its the right place to discuss things!

Providing people are being constructive in their criticism, or praise for that matter, I don't have any problem with it.

I think the IF/DG comparison photo, whilst perhaps cherry-picking, definitely shows a stylistic change from some of the earlier, much more utilitarian looking sculpts. To me it does feel closer to a 40k-marine look than a 30k marine.

That being said he is painted as an Imperial Fist and so the over-ostentation is perhaps a better fit. I'll wait to see what some of the other new sculpts look like, hopefully they will tone it down a little and keep some of the traditional 30k style (although once again thats a subjective opinion on my part)

It's a character model, and one you shouldn't have more than a couple of really in an army so I can see why they blinged them out to stand out among the more plain models.

 Irbis wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Love that model, and also a great example of less is more in terms of details and decorations

You say "less" because of lazy, 3.5 colors palette. It's almost monochrome. Just look at the gun, one greenish blob. I'd bet that if new model was painted this detail-less way and your praetor new GW style, you'd be saying the first is the lesser-more one, and the latter over-designed junk. It's amazing how people can't look past paint and say things that are objectively false just because painter emphasized or muted them.

It's especially funny (and sad) because if anything, old HH depictions had pristine armour, as it was freshly made (even in Blanche depictions, at that), while the 40K one were dirty and broken from lack of maintenance, resources, and 10.000 years of wear. HH lemmings just latched to paintings of one (really wrong from fluff perspective) FW painter doing stuff in 'historical' style, when really, current GW paint jobs are how it was always supposed to look like. Bright and shiny, like everything during Great Crusade.

But again, it's not like gatekeeping brigade actually knows the fluff (or cares for it), it's just always muh dumping on plastic models/GW paint styles to cope with wasting tons of money uselessly on objectively worse minis that were then further degraded by really subpar paint jobs that are hilariously wrong even on WW2 models (seriously, I saw a seminar once on difference how people imagine/paint dirty/worn out 'realistic' WW2 tanks and how they really looked like, and FW "style" was rubbished as laughable nonsense even in it by actual WW2 experts)...

Honestly, I don't even mind that, I like both styles, my issue is with this weird in-between that they're doing for HH models that just looks odd, at least to me. Like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Some colors chemes look alright, but IF just amplifies it more.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 tauist wrote:
whereas these artificer armours just want to add too much elements that do not have that minimalistic feel to them.

But that's exactly the point of artificer armor in the fluff. It's a specifically customized suit of armor to the wearer's preference that is further embellished and decorated by the original user that is eventually kept as a relic by the Chapter/Legion. These new plastics actually reflect that.

What mark is the axe praetor supposed to be based on?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Bravo, fantastically put. Exalted.

Contentless drivel posts like yours are a disgrace to the forums. Cheerleading people being nasty to each other only serves to heighten division, and not adding any thought of your own highlights that either a) you're a simpleton with nothing of your own to contribute or b) you're a coward afraid to speak your mind.

The whole point of having a damned "exalt" feature on this forum is so we don't need to have these kind of vacuous grandstanding exercises if all you really want to express is your agreement with someone.

 Gert wrote:
It's busy for sure but I think it makes the distinction of Artificer Armour pretty clear. You can see that at some point it was MkVI but with time and the owner's personal additions, it's something different.

Does the timeline work for that? I was under the impression that deployment of MkVI had only just begun when hostilities broke out. Or is this case where the 30k universe's hundreds-and-hundreds-of-years time scale makes the intuitive reading -- that the newest model of advanced armour wouldn't have time to make it to revered-ancient-relic status until well after the war -- less accurate?

 warboss wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 tauist wrote:
whereas these artificer armours just want to add too much elements that do not have that minimalistic feel to them.

But that's exactly the point of artificer armor in the fluff. It's a specifically customized suit of armor to the wearer's preference that is further embellished and decorated by the original user that is eventually kept as a relic by the Chapter/Legion. These new plastics actually reflect that.

What mark is the axe praetor supposed to be based on?

The axe is the only significant mark against that model for me. Obviously the design doesn't work and it's very oversized, I can forgive both of those aspects but I'd expect it to have a very utilitarian appearance and it really doesn't.