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.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Thanks for the info. I won´t touch expensive FW stuff. There is a plethora of 40K marine arms in my bitz box however I doubt they will look good on the older Mark armours.

I can guarantee nobody in real life cares what pattern of Power Armour arms your models have. It's also a hallmark of the Heresy for Marines to use what they had to hand and having mixed armour was commonplace. Hell, I'm currently painting a unit of Iron Hands that has MkIII, MkIV, MkV, CSM patter MkVI, other CSM armour from both the old and new kits, MkVI and some parts from the IH Primaris upgrade packs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
My only hope is that we get a Deimos Pattern Predator - the Forge World price is total extortion.

Given the way the new Rhino is set up, with a universal hull sprue and a separate 'Rhino' sprue, I'd say a Predator sprue is inevitable.

With how the side panels are set up I could see a Vindicator tank option as well.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Nice to see the usual suspects rallying to GW's defence the moment a tiny bit of criticism is levelled their way. They should double, no triple your salary of £0.00 for such devoted service!

Results from the quiz are in. Be interesting to see how many of the results are from people picking a legion vs it just being what result they got from the quiz. A lot of people starting DA so them being at the top isn't a surprise but on the other hand I've seen loads of SOH newcomers and they're pretty low down.

I did the quiz multiple times to see what kind of result I would get with each decision. So do all my takes on the quiz made it into the analysis or just the first one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Boringstuff wrote:
That quiz was hopeless, I tried to get Iron Warriors and got Salamanders...

I tried to get IH and got the lizards too!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:

JWBS wrote:
Nice to see IH and WS so low in the rankings, I'm gonna do both of those. SoH too.

Yeah I tried specifically to get IH the first time I took the quiz, and didn't get it, oddly enough. I had to backtrack on several questions and there was one specific question I had to answer to get IH--can't remember what it was, but it wasn't something I associated as "iconic" to Iron Hands.

Okay I just did it again -- had to select deploy infantry (instead of armor) and mass ranks of troops (instead of analyze routes and optimize defenses). If you select armored support, you can't get Iron Hands, which doesn't strictly make sense.

There's some questions that I don't believe affect the outcome: whether you prefer sicaran tank or contemptor dreadnought, for example.

Yeah, that´s why I didn´t get IH in the first place. Maybe GW pictures for IH blobs of cyborg marines walking slowly down the field muttering "Resistance is futile" all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ekwatts wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
So this means all the beakies pull specialist/heavy duty and the old Marks are destined to only carry bolters?

The MkIV kit comes with Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, Plasma Guns, Meltaguns, and Flamers. The MkIII kit drops the Missiles and keeps everything else.

The best part of all of this is how precious people are being about doing the absolute bare minimum work to make the new weapons fit the older models. You should try doing HH when your options are insanely expensive FW kits or scrounging together what parts you can from 40k units.

It's mind boggling how people I thought were veteran gamers, modellers, painters, etc, are getting so upset about a few millimetres of a gap at a wrist, isn't it? It's not just me, surely?

And I'm assuming that some of these people have bought and made Forgeworld kits before.

You know, it's one thing to be having to fill in several millimetres worth of gaps in eye-wateringly expensive resin kits in which all the pieces are actually intended to work together, and perhaps another thing entirely to be engaging in ALL CAPS ACCUSATIONS OF PROFITEERING when trying to fit two kits made nearly a decade apart from another that don't even amount to quite the same amount of cutting or greenstuffing work as the afore-mentioned Forgeworld models.

IS IT ME? Am I the only person looking at that picture going "That... looks like it can be absolutely fine...?"

It´s mind boggling how people defend GW for releasing sloppy products and demanding simultaneously "premium" prices. Should the gap problem be a real scenario then I won´ t stop blaming GW for bad quality control. I am not looking forward to modify inconsistencies with Greenstuff as I expect much better from a market leader.

 Strg Alt wrote:

It´s mind boggling how people defend GW for releasing sloppy products and demanding simultaneously "premium" prices. Should the gap problem be a real scenario then I won´ t stop blaming GW for bad quality control. I am not looking forward to modify inconsistencies with Greenstuff as I expect much better from a market leader.

I assume no one here designs miniatures professionally, but most seem to have a basic handle on why this particular limitation has come about. You clearly don't have this basic understanding, even when it has been explained pretty succinctly, hence this statement, along with others by other people ("Why not full backwards compatibility AND ALSO new dynamic poses and appropriate scaling!??!?").

the issue with the guns having gaps etc on MK III and MK IV isn't a quality control problem, it's just that GW has clearly decided to move in a slightly differant direction with mini design. and the weapons packs look like they'd fit with some cutting and greenstuffing. it'd be nice if they where 100% compatable but I for one wasn't expecting them to be a 100% match.

I mean if a 100% match is desirable forge world hasn't removed their special weapons kits.

JWBS wrote:

I assume no one here designs miniatures professionally, but most seem to have a basic handle on why this particular limitation has come about. You clearly don't have this basic understanding, even when it has been explained pretty succinctly, hence this statement, along with others by other people ("Why not full backwards compatibility AND ALSO new dynamic poses and appropriate scaling!??!?").

Dynamic posing on gaming pieces is always inferior to a good static pose that maximises the stability and durability of the object.

Exactly. The weapons kits were not specifically designed to fit to earlier kits, kits that we're all aware were produced under a different design philosophy to the current MKVI models found in the newly relaunched Heresy set.

HOWEVER.

They can and will work with a little effort. As this is a hobby that kind of invites just that kind of effort, the thing that has kind of shocked me is the sheer level of bile that has issued forth over just such a suggestion.

I am not propping GW up here for producing a weapons kit that is inconsistently compatible with kits that predate it by a decade. I'm flabbergasted by the expectation, the privilege, on show from those who are, in some cases, mad that they may need to do a little cutting with their existing kits and/or bemoaning an issue that is theoretically not going to be too widespread to begin with.

Separately, my more minor concern is this:

I definitely believe that the very people who might have this concern in the first place, who might be overwhelmingly the concerned party in question, the ones that absolutely want to mix and match and kitbash, therefore, the ones that seem to be the most overly concerned by the minor incompatibility, would also be the ones most capable of correcting it on their own terms.

Calm down. Seriously. We love little plastic figures.

You have two options: Either you greenstuff your way through or pay more and get the resin weapons that are designed to go with the MkIII/MkIV models.

It's really quite simple.

You could also, dunno, like, give GW the middle finger and buy 3rd party / 3D printed bitz? The choice is yours.

It doesn't even look like you'd need to green stuff it necessarily. Just take a saw and remove the banded bits from the hands then file flat.

Let me get this straight...

The plastic MKIII and MKIV kits were originally released in 2015 / 2016 as part of standalone boardgames. They were later sold separately as an alternative to resin FW marines, but with optional resin weapon upgrade components. I'm still not clear on if all of these components are still on sale or not, but it seems they were at one point.

GW have just started selling a brand new plastic MKVI kit at a slightly larger scale, along with their own plastic upgrade components.

Now there's a bunch of folks getting upset and throwing around insults because the new upgrade components advertised as "designed to be assembled with the MKVI Tactical Squad set" aren't compatible with smaller scale models from ~7 years ago, despite never being advertised as compatible. And despite those older models already having their own weapon components available.

...does that about sum things up?

 Gert wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
So this means all the beakies pull specialist/heavy duty and the old Marks are destined to only carry bolters?

The MkIV kit comes with Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, Plasma Guns, Meltaguns, and Flamers. The MkIII kit drops the Missiles and keeps everything else.

I'm not really up for an entirely new game right now, but I went for 2 sets of Mk IV kits. That gives me 4 of each of the heavy and special weapons, plus plasma pistols, bolter pistols, chainswords and power swords. Oh, and power fists and lightning claws.

I figure that if I do decide to go for HH games, it's 1 unit of 20 tacticals plus choices from minimum-sized support squads or heavy support squads, assault squads to veteran squads. And I barely have to hit the bits box.

If I build them for 40k, that's a bunch of pretty standard tactical squad choices, and they fit with the 40k heavy weapons arms.

I would like to try the new beakies at some point, but I can wait.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

JWBS wrote:

I assume no one here designs miniatures professionally, but most seem to have a basic handle on why this particular limitation has come about. You clearly don't have this basic understanding, even when it has been explained pretty succinctly, hence this statement, along with others by other people ("Why not full backwards compatibility AND ALSO new dynamic poses and appropriate scaling!??!?").

Dynamic posing on gaming pieces is always inferior to a good static pose that maximises the stability and durability of the object.

This new kit is a mix of both. That new 5 man tactical sprue - three of the (much maligned) legs planted in a wide stance, as was the case for all non-assault marines for a long long time (fewer complaints about that it seems, it's almost like a lot of people here tailor their complaints to suit their arguments) and a couple of guys advancing. The aesthetic improvements are subtle but significant, imo. The scale improvements though straight up can't be backwards compatible with the older scale, that would require magical shrinking and expanding bits that scale up or down with whatever you want them to fit, or another range of SKUs that fit the size of the previous design standard and not the new one. This in turn would doubtless enrage many here on Dakka.

JWBS wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

JWBS wrote:

I assume no one here designs miniatures professionally, but most seem to have a basic handle on why this particular limitation has come about. You clearly don't have this basic understanding, even when it has been explained pretty succinctly, hence this statement, along with others by other people ("Why not full backwards compatibility AND ALSO new dynamic poses and appropriate scaling!??!?").

Dynamic posing on gaming pieces is always inferior to a good static pose that maximises the stability and durability of the object.

This new kit is a mix of both. That new 5 man tactical sprue - three of the (much maligned) legs planted in a wide stance, as was the case for all non-assault marines for a long long time (fewer complaints about that it seems, it's almost like a lot of people here tailor their complaints to suit their arguments) and a couple of guys advancing. The aesthetic improvements are subtle but significant, imo. The scale improvements though straight up can't be backwards compatible with the older scale, that would require magical shrinking and expanding bits that scale up or down with whatever you want them to fit, or another range of SKUs that fit the size of the previous design standard and not the new one. This in turn would doubtless enrage many here on Dakka.

Or just keeping the hand on the arm instead of the gun, you know, in the real world where we don't invent magical excuses for why a product must be the way it is.

Cos it looks like crap is why, is this hard to understand or something? And how does this even solve the gap problem when that's a function of the size of arms and torso? Only solves the hand problem, and has a major downside. Magic bits would be better.

Hmmm yes how would being able to slide the left hand up or down along the gun possibly fix the issue of how far apart the arms must be.

I swear, the sooner that online brand defense is recognized as a mental illness, the better.

It's super cool and normal of you to paint this as me defending corporation™ rather than genuinely preferring the new design philosophy and furthermore strongly implying that I'm mentally ill.

It's what you get for fabricating asinine excuses on GW's behalf, instead of just saying you like it better this way. A bit of a givaway, that.

This is like trying to have a discussion with a shoe.

Advanced modeling skills required is code for we couldn’t be bothered. And ho-ho, looks like whatever we hype sells out on preorder.

JWBS wrote:
This is like trying to have a discussion with a shoe.

Don't flatter the poor man, he's clearly closer to a sandal, at best. Maybe a clog, on a good day. He dreams of the day he could ascend to the rarified air of being comparable to a shoe.

So what you do, is you take the time you spent reading and replying to this thread, and use that time to convert the new guns on to the old Marines.

I'm far from a GW supporter but even I think this discussion is getting a bit silly.

If we're going to fight over something, I'd rather GW return to the days when neither hand was attached to the gun, it was so much easier to paint Marines when you could just leave the gun off until after they were painted. Though I do prefer the look of the new ones, not having the oversized U shape makes the hand look more natural.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm far from a GW supporter but even I think this discussion is getting a bit silly.

Maybe, but I have said it already, for a premium priced model kit, I expect a premium product, and not something I need to cut them a litte to make it fit

It would be not a problem if the weapons would come cheap, but with the premium they should be backwards compatible to the rest of the HH models and GW would have been able to do it
there is no excuse that the Chinese messed it up or that they did not see it until the stuff was already delivered, with in house production and QM this intended, and for me this is not something I can ignore with that price point the weapons are sold

being better of with 3rd party resin bits, as they cost the same as the plastic ones but will fit without cutting

I'm with JWBS. I'm not a huge fan of the new plastic weapons because I much prefer the resin ones with the flexible weapons feeds, etc. but I already have a small stash of those for use on my mk3/4 marines anyway. In the meantime I'm happy to use these new plastic weapons on my beakies. I also expect these weapons will be compatible with probably forthcoming mk2/5 kits, as well as the like mk3/4 resculpt a few years down the line.

Look at the weapon problem the other way around:
You can't use any leftover weapons you may have already collected on the new MkVI marines. Sure, with some work you can make the new weapons fit on old marines, but you can't make the old weapons fit on the new marines at all. Unless you sculpt the missing hand.

Just like when GW decided to start adding the right hand to the gun, this changes how the models are built and impacts any collection of bits we may already have. This is, apparently, how it will be going forward. Doesn't mean I have to like the change.

 ekwatts wrote:
Exactly. The weapons kits were not specifically designed to fit to earlier kits, kits that we're all aware were produced under a different design philosophy to the current MKVI models found in the newly relaunched Heresy set.

HOWEVER.

They can and will work with a little effort. As this is a hobby that kind of invites just that kind of effort, the thing that has kind of shocked me is the sheer level of bile that has issued forth over just such a suggestion.

I am not propping GW up here for producing a weapons kit that is inconsistently compatible with kits that predate it by a decade. I'm flabbergasted by the expectation, the privilege, on show from those who are, in some cases, mad that they may need to do a little cutting with their existing kits and/or bemoaning an issue that is theoretically not going to be too widespread to begin with.

Separately, my more minor concern is this:

I definitely believe that the very people who might have this concern in the first place, who might be overwhelmingly the concerned party in question, the ones that absolutely want to mix and match and kitbash, therefore, the ones that seem to be the most overly concerned by the minor incompatibility, would also be the ones most capable of correcting it on their own terms.

Calm down. Seriously. We love little plastic figures.

And I am flabbergasted by the sheer amount of white knights who come out of their woodwork. So it will be done like I said earlier:
Beakies for special/heavy weapons and the other Marks for all weapons which can be bolted on without a fuss. When Age of Darkness arrives I intend to paint it up in a jiffy and not waste my time with unnecessary greenstuff work. If I want to do conversions on specific models I shall do so but not on rank & file troops.

In any case, what GW has accomplished is forcing me to print half my army if I want it all in the same scale. Good job (and cue the simps' tears)

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Look at the weapon problem the other way around:
You can't use any leftover weapons you may have already collected on the new MkVI marines. Sure, with some work you can make the new weapons fit on old marines, but you can't make the old weapons fit on the new marines at all. Unless you sculpt the missing hand.

Just like when GW decided to start adding the right hand to the gun, this changes how the models are built and impacts any collection of bits we may already have. This is, apparently, how it will be going forward. Doesn't mean I have to like the change.

This assumes I have leftovers.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
Exactly. The weapons kits were not specifically designed to fit to earlier kits, kits that we're all aware were produced under a different design philosophy to the current MKVI models found in the newly relaunched Heresy set.

HOWEVER.

They can and will work with a little effort. As this is a hobby that kind of invites just that kind of effort, the thing that has kind of shocked me is the sheer level of bile that has issued forth over just such a suggestion.

I am not propping GW up here for producing a weapons kit that is inconsistently compatible with kits that predate it by a decade. I'm flabbergasted by the expectation, the privilege, on show from those who are, in some cases, mad that they may need to do a little cutting with their existing kits and/or bemoaning an issue that is theoretically not going to be too widespread to begin with.

Separately, my more minor concern is this:

I definitely believe that the very people who might have this concern in the first place, who might be overwhelmingly the concerned party in question, the ones that absolutely want to mix and match and kitbash, therefore, the ones that seem to be the most overly concerned by the minor incompatibility, would also be the ones most capable of correcting it on their own terms.

Calm down. Seriously. We love little plastic figures.

And I am flabbergasted by the sheer amount of white knights who come out of their woodwork. So it will be done like I said earlier:
Beakies for special/heavy weapons and the other Marks for all weapons which can be bolted on without a fuss. When Age of Darkness arrives I intend to paint it up in a jiffy and not waste my time with unnecessary greenstuff work. If I want to do conversions on specific models I shall do so but not on rank & file troops.

I mean if thats the case yeah just use beakies.

I admit it's a shame as I honestly prefer to look of MK 3 armor

So get mk3 marines. You can get all but jump pack versions from gw as is.

 Gert wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Thanks for the info. I won´t touch expensive FW stuff. There is a plethora of 40K marine arms in my bitz box however I doubt they will look good on the older Mark armours.

I can guarantee nobody in real life cares what pattern of Power Armour arms your models have. It's also a hallmark of the Heresy for Marines to use what they had to hand and having mixed armour was commonplace. Hell, I'm currently painting a unit of Iron Hands that has MkIII, MkIV, MkV, CSM patter MkVI, other CSM armour from both the old and new kits, MkVI and some parts from the IH Primaris upgrade packs.

To an extent - I've only seen people who are bringing Primaris Power Armor get called out. I've seen a number of people also tell each other if you're using marines that have the Aquilla, to just play Emperor's Children.

As far as the alternate paint schemes, they have been pretty kind by saying "Just don't bring your Howling Griffins into the HH and call them Ultramarines or Imperial Fists. If you're Legion is black, make sure they have some black as a main color. If they are blue, make sure blue shows up somewhere. Also, be consistent and make them uniform throughout your force."

Otherwise, I think everyone has been pretty accepting. There have been a few cases of people just being jerks but in my opinion, I think they were fishing for someone to get upset. I've only seen a Rainbow Warrior Legion player who was upset that he couldn't create his own legion with the new rules and the general response to them was "Go play 40K."