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.

 Nevelon wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I kinda want this guy now, because of that alt pose. The angle he’s holding the banner gives a sense of movement lacking in most ancients. Even with half the arm on the torso, I think a swap to a running assault intercessor body would be cool and not hard. Charging across the battlefield to the enemy side, colours leading the charge!

Probably a bad idea. Remember the cinematic from Dawn of War? Charging with banner in hand is bad for your health.

 xttz wrote:
The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

They have a painted version of the alternate pose on the store page. They even went to the trouble of making it a 360 picture.

I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

On one hand “Everyone is just standing there, flat on the ground, can we get some more interesting poses?” the other, “Why is everyone standing on a tactical rock?”

I don’t think GW can win on this one. It is nice on models like the Indomunus captain where you had the option for a more involved base, or a simpler one.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

On one hand “Everyone is just standing there, flat on the ground, can we get some more interesting poses?” the other, “Why is everyone standing on a tactical rock?”

I don’t think GW can win on this one. It is nice on models like the Indomunus captain where you had the option for a more involved base, or a simpler one.

Yeah but when literally everyone is standing one foot on a tiny rock that's not contributing anything to his pose, outside of the ankle looking a bit broken, it's not more interesting it's just dumb.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I'm still wondering if it's some kind of bloody top-down requirement for every marine character to have a pointless, tiny tactical rock?

On one hand “Everyone is just standing there, flat on the ground, can we get some more interesting poses?” the other, “Why is everyone standing on a tactical rock?”

I don’t think GW can win on this one. It is nice on models like the Indomunus captain where you had the option for a more involved base, or a simpler one.

Yeah but when literally everyone is standing one foot on a tiny rock that's not contributing anything to his pose, outside of the ankle looking a bit broken, it's not more interesting it's just dumb.

You're right, having the ancient swirling the banner like a ribbon dancer as he pirouette across the battlefield would stand out more.

 Nevelon wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

There is a painted copy on their web page, so they did do one eventually. Could they have painted the main pose first, but didn’t get to the second build until after the article went up? No clue how the timeline on painting goes over there.

So how are they 'hiding' the other build if it's shown on the store?

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


I know it's oftentimes pointless to ask "but why" when it comes to GW, but why would they hide the alternate pose? There's no benefit to it.

The most likely explanation I can think of is that they didn't think it was worth getting the studio team to paint another copy of the model. Does anyone know if they sent out review samples of these characters to the usual community sites?

There is a painted copy on their web page, so they did do one eventually. Could they have painted the main pose first, but didn’t get to the second build until after the article went up? No clue how the timeline on painting goes over there.

So how are they 'hiding' the other build if it's shown on the store?

I’m not the one who started using the term “hiding”. I think it’s a little harsh for what they are doing, but not completely unjustified. How many times have they shown this guy off? Have they done anything but use the one pic? Have they mentioned even once that the kit has options? Normally GW is quick to crow about options and alternate builds, but nothing but silence here. Which is a bit odd. So not “hiding” but “omitting information”. I think hiding implies a lot of intent, this I think is just them screwing up.

 xttz wrote:
So how are they 'hiding' the other build if it's shown on the store?

"Hiding" might be pushing it, but I think it is fair to say that they aren't promoting this build as heavily as the power sword one - no-one seemed to have a clue about it until the model went up on the store for pre-order yesterday, after all,