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.

The biggest upgrade for the Sicaran going plastic....non-warped main guns.

2 takeaways from that article.
- They're not mentioning any turret options, which seems like a gross oversight or, more likely, a missed opportunity.
- They think the Kratos is "sleek."

 Azreal13 wrote:
... or, more likely, a missed opportunity.

That's the one kind of opportunitey that GW never misses, after all.

Always the options for resin upgrades, or another box with different/extra sprues.

Although it would have been nice to see at least one alt main gun in the core kit.

 Azreal13 wrote:
2 takeaways from that article.
- They're not mentioning any turret options, which seems like a gross oversight or, more likely, a missed opportunity.
- They think the Kratos is "sleek."

My own takeaway is that, logically, the Sicaran should be available for regular 40k armies ^^, taking into account that it was "Originally designed by Roboute Guilliman and Ferrus Manus" and Guilliman is born again and all.

I'd expect an alternative turret sprue eventually, same as I expect a Predator turret sprue. Look at how it works in AT.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I'd expect an alternative turret sprue eventually, same as I expect a Predator turret sprue. Look at how it works in AT.

[stares at Warmaster] ...badly?

Plastic Sicaran - Take my flocking money!!

 Albertorius wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
2 takeaways from that article.
- They're not mentioning any turret options, which seems like a gross oversight or, more likely, a missed opportunity.
- They think the Kratos is "sleek."

My own takeaway is that, logically, the Sicaran should be available for regular 40k armies ^^, taking into account that it was "Originally designed by Roboute Guilliman and Ferrus Manus" and Guilliman is born again and all.

Um, they already are, and have been since 2013 (Loyalists) and 2014 (CSM), respectively.

Quite chuffed with the plastic Sicaran confirmation. Don't even really play Astartes of any sort, but I do like the idea of having one of those with yes, the added bonus on having a kit that isn't seven shades of gak warped resin. If the 40k variant has access to volkite sponsons, even tastier.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
2 takeaways from that article.
- They're not mentioning any turret options, which seems like a gross oversight or, more likely, a missed opportunity.
- They think the Kratos is "sleek."

My own takeaway is that, logically, the Sicaran should be available for regular 40k armies ^^, taking into account that it was "Originally designed by Roboute Guilliman and Ferrus Manus" and Guilliman is born again and all.

Um, they already are, and have been since 2013 (Loyalists) and 2014 (CSM), respectively.

Well, it just shows how much I have been paying attention xD. Must admit I don't usually look what's permitted from FW.

But I kinda meant that it probably should be in the codex, what with Big G being in charge and all.

Wouldn't wonder when 40k Space Marines can take Sicarans and Kratos with the next Campaign Book and the Deimos Rhino and derivates get re-released with Chaos sprues for the next Codex Chaos Space Marines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
... or, more likely, a missed opportunity.

That's the one kind of opportunitey that GW never misses, after all.

It's not a missed opportunity, it's an opportunity to sell us a supplementary turret box or two.

 Gert wrote:
It is against site rules to describe how I feel about Wrack and Ruin.
I do hope they kept the ignoring Ld tests against shooting, makes my games run quicker.
I'm loving that the writers of these articles are having fun with it as well and it's nice to see things like "man-of-the-people Perturabo" pop up in WarCom articles.

I don't even play IW and I'm mad at it. This rule is so representative of 40k design. Everything that was wrong in chaos warbands or chapter traits but was avoided in HH 1.0... let's hope the others legions avoid this fate

 godardc wrote:

 Gert wrote:
It is against site rules to describe how I feel about Wrack and Ruin.
I do hope they kept the ignoring Ld tests against shooting, makes my games run quicker.
I'm loving that the writers of these articles are having fun with it as well and it's nice to see things like "man-of-the-people Perturabo" pop up in WarCom articles.

I don't even play IW and I'm mad at it. This rule is so representative of 40k design. Everything that was wrong in chaos warbands or chapter traits but was avoided in HH 1.0... let's hope the others legions avoid this fate

What's wrong with it? +1 Str vs Vehicals, Dreads and so on is pretty nice.

It's not like this is 40k where +1 Str barely matters outside of a few edge cases.

 Togusa wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Gert wrote:
It is against site rules to describe how I feel about Wrack and Ruin.
I do hope they kept the ignoring Ld tests against shooting, makes my games run quicker.
I'm loving that the writers of these articles are having fun with it as well and it's nice to see things like "man-of-the-people Perturabo" pop up in WarCom articles.

I don't even play IW and I'm mad at it. This rule is so representative of 40k design. Everything that was wrong in chaos warbands or chapter traits but was avoided in HH 1.0... let's hope the others legions avoid this fate

What's wrong with it? +1 Str vs Vehicals, Dreads and so on is pretty nice.

I just doesn't really represent the Iron Warriors all that much. Or at all, really. IWs are specialized in siege breaking and taking fortifications, mainly via using overwhelming firepower and an utter lack of regard for their own lives. They pay the piper, and get the job done by whatever means.

Hitting slightly harder to vehicles, dreads, robots and buildings is... a thing.

 godardc wrote:

I don't even play IW and I'm mad at it. This rule is so representative of 40k design. Everything that was wrong in chaos warbands or chapter traits but was avoided in HH 1.0... let's hope the others legions avoid this fate

Sorry I should have been more clear. Even if the Ld stuff isn't kept, this is a brilliant Legion rule for IW. I love it.

 Albertorius wrote:


Hitting slightly harder to vehicles, dreads, robots and buildings is... a thing.

A thing that represents their ability to analyze and exploit a target's weak points. They don't take fortifications through brute force, but in a methodical way that tears down an enemy piece by piece through careful planning before applying that force.

 zedmeister wrote:
Yes they most likely are, you can see the offset resin panel on the side against the plastic

And the tracks are those from the old Rhino and not the new style of the plastic Deimos.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:


Hitting slightly harder to vehicles, dreads, robots and buildings is... a thing.

A thing that represents their ability to analyze and exploit a target's weak points. They don't take fortifications through brute force, but in a methodical way that tears down an enemy piece by piece through careful planning before applying that force.

Or whatever other thing you'd like to, yes. Like pure dumb luck, overpowered rounds, the guide of the dark gods... at least it works on buildings, too, for the fluff.

But they are Iron Warriors. They totally DO take fortifications through brute force. They are Iron Warriors. They go where the fight is toughest, and ugliest, and do whatever they need (be it to the enemy, to their allies or to themselves) to get the work done.

Sorry. 140 plus pages is a bit long. Did I see somewhere that the HH box set is looking to be around $300??

Thanks.

 jason1977 wrote:
Sorry. 140 plus pages is a bit long. Did I see somewhere that the HH box set is looking to be around $300??

Thanks.

They said it'll be under $300 but didn't give an exact price.

JSG wrote:

 jason1977 wrote:
Sorry. 140 plus pages is a bit long. Did I see somewhere that the HH box set is looking to be around $300??

Thanks.

They said it'll be under $300 but didn't give an exact price.

When a company says “Under $300” expect $299. If we are lucky it might be $295.

That said, $300 gets a pretty packed-full box.

So If I am not a crazy man, can we assume that they're going to do five legion articles a week for three weeks, ending with legions 17 and 18 on May 30 and 31? And that would leave us a minimum of two more Horus Heresy Thursday reveals (Which could be Plastic Levithans, Predators, Landraiders or some other units?) before a two week preorder announcement for the box set possibly on June 5 for delivery on June 25th?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:

JSG wrote:

 jason1977 wrote:
Sorry. 140 plus pages is a bit long. Did I see somewhere that the HH box set is looking to be around $300??

Thanks.

They said it'll be under $300 but didn't give an exact price.

When a company says “Under $300” expect $299. If we are lucky it might be $295.

That said, $300 gets a pretty packed-full box.

A lot of folks have been saying 270$ USD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:


Hitting slightly harder to vehicles, dreads, robots and buildings is... a thing.

A thing that represents their ability to analyze and exploit a target's weak points. They don't take fortifications through brute force, but in a methodical way that tears down an enemy piece by piece through careful planning before applying that force.

Or whatever other thing you'd like to, yes. Like pure dumb luck, overpowered rounds, the guide of the dark gods... at least it works on buildings, too, for the fluff.

But they are Iron Warriors. They totally DO take fortifications through brute force. They are Iron Warriors. They go where the fight is toughest, and ugliest, and do whatever they need (be it to the enemy, to their allies or to themselves) to get the work done.

What would you have preferred the rule to be?

Just to hop back to a point earlier. The pic of the Iron Warriors vehicles is Ben Greaves' army from way back when.

 Togusa wrote:
What would you have preferred the rule to be?

Probably something to do with them shrugging off casualties, or a way to mitigate those casualties, plus probably something to assault to and from cover or fortified positions.

 Albertorius wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
What would you have preferred the rule to be?

Probably something to do with them shrugging off casualties, or a way to mitigate those casualties, plus probably something to assault to and from cover or fortified positions.

Isn't durability more of dg thing?

tneva82 wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
What would you have preferred the rule to be?

Probably something to do with them shrugging off casualties, or a way to mitigate those casualties, plus probably something to assault to and from cover or fortified positions.

Isn't durability more of dg thing?

DG would be not dying. IWs would be ignoring casualties.

 Gert wrote:
Just to hop back to a point earlier. The pic of the Iron Warriors vehicles is Ben Greaves' army from way back when.

Now I remember, that Army was in the White Dwarf in the past.