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.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I wonder if the new Nid will be able to be dual built as the red terror?
Yeah, my dream kit = dual Raveners/Shrikes box that allows also to build Parasite of Mortrex/Red Terror.
Why do people keep asking for a Ravener kit when it already exists? I dont get it.
So because there is an old kit we could never have new and improved one? With that logic Necrons would never get new Warriors.
The current Ravener kit looks decent though.
Most of the Tyranid range is decent. I wouldn't mind seeing some new termies and hormas, maybe the warriors could do with an upsizing and add some shrikes. The Lictor could be made plastic.
Tyranids don't really need a whole lot at this point.
JWBS wrote: Yes I thought that may have been ash wastes but something about the full wrap on the staff seems a bit off
This one looks Admechy to me, the fabrics plus that blue cable/hose reminds me of the Serberys rider aesthetic. Also looks quite like Gideon Lorr though.
Has anyone talked about this being part of the Squat update? There are a some rumors about them coming out this year.
Sorry but has 0 squat proportions.
I did not realize that those two photos were of the same model. I guess that's what happens when you only watch the video a single time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 09:36:35
Monopose figs don't have ball and socket. And any new nid would be monopose. With luck with alternative weapons. At worst you get box with 4 hormagaunt, 8 termagaunt w/fleshborer and 4 termagaunt w/devourer.
Overread wrote: Tyranids in general are very chunky models compared to a lot of modern sculpts. It's one thing I think could happen with a remake of them is less of a design change and more of a diet thinning them all down some.
Yeah, Gaunts of all kinds could be made smaller to fit their fluff decription better.
A hormagaunt is meant to be great dane > horse sized iirc?
Here's the official gaunt size:
Spoiler:
Which shows that the current models are too big.
I have never seen a single piece of art work that showed Hormagaunts or Termagants as being large dog sized. They are people sized. It's terrifying that they come in those numbers while being the size of men.
BTW, those pictures are comparing a termagant, not a hormagaunt.
Here is an example.
Bottom left corner. They are in fact space marine sized.
Because the artist based them on the current, too big models.
Here (I think it is 3rd ed cover?) they look better
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Which would be a downgrade, since the purpose of the 2 piece head is so they can have the ball and socket neck.
Two piece heads are the work of Satan.
I'll take the 'downgrade'.
Really? I think I've built about 60 gaunts over the years and I don't recall ever having much of an issue with it.
Aren't you normally the one extolling the virtues of multipose? Or am I thinking of someone else.
Gargoyles are one that don't have a two piece head and the ball and socket is at the shoulders instead of the head, I don't recall if they're multipose or fixed pose heads though, it's been many years since I've built a gargoyle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Monopose figs don't have ball and socket. And any new nid would be monopose. With luck with alternative weapons. At worst you get box with 4 hormagaunt, 8 termagaunt w/fleshborer and 4 termagaunt w/devourer.
Tyranids are one army that absolutely should stay multipose, because there's no compromise due to them being an exoskeleton type creature (or whatever you call the "skin" of a Tyranid). Orks are a challenge to make multipose because naturally for a given pose the muscles and fabrics take on a certain shape, and for a different pose you need to change the muscles and fabrics themselves not just rotate it slightly one way or another. But the tyranid biostructure means you can make the shoulders ball joints, the neck ball joints, the waist can be ball jointed, and there's no compromise on the aesthetic like there is for Orks.
So for Orks, I'm pro-monopose but with many options to avoid monotony, for Tyranids I'm pro-multipose.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/03 10:56:19
As it stands being the same model just in different sizes most of the times, makes the range specially boring.
lmao... have you ever looked closely at a Space Marine army?
Bad example, methinks.
I just don’t agree that Tyranids are the same model just in different sizes.
Its definitely something you shouldn't agree with. Assemble and paint just a handful and the statement is just a pile of
Right... theres a reason many online active, decades long, collectors of nids move away from normal nid design and heavy convert to a point its something else... But hey others opinions are BS cause you painted some.
Ultimately good for you that you are happy with copy paste design specially on the most fast evolving race in 40k. The design should be biodiverse not 2 or 3 typical designs in different sizes.
Like some said a new gaunt design sleeker and more menacing more differenciations between warriors etc and hopefully fixing the fragile hooves support to the base of horms that is badly conceived and snaps... specially bad on older plastic formulas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 11:24:40
Who the hell said anything about multi-/mono-pose? But hey, nice attempt at attacking me rather than my point.
Miniatures that are bad to assemble can be both, and Gaunts are horrible to assemble. And the idea that removing two-piece heads would suddenly make them mono-pose is fething absurd. You all know that. Stop trying to make this a mono-/multi-pose thing when it's not.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/03 11:47:46
Nevelon wrote: Move the socket to the torso, not the head. Best of both worlds.
That's what the gargoyles are like but I think they're monopose, because that joint has to fit around the clavicle, it's not actually a circular joint.
Also the torso would then need to be 2 parts, so it just ends up the same amount of work but maybe the join line is in a less bad place. But it doesn't need to be split down the middle like the gaunts, it could be split like the Warriors and Raveners instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 12:02:54
Who the hell said anything about multi-/mono-pose? But hey, nice attempt at attacking me rather than my point.
Miniatures that are bad to assemble can be both, and Gaunts are horrible to assemble. And the idea that removing two-piece heads would suddenly make them mono-pose is fething absurd. You all know that. Stop trying to make this a mono-/multi-pose thing when it's not.
Of course it is. If you want the head to be separate from the body, with the head being able to be posed any way you choose, then either the head or the body needs to be in two parts to enable the ball and socket joint which is required, due to the limitations of plastic tooling. Eg, Kabalite warriors, Tactical squad, Gaunts, etc etc etc.
I'm not sure what difference it would make having the body in two parts instead of the head, apart from taking up too much sprue space, which was defo a consideration at the time?
But you know this, presumably, so god knows what the point of this conversation is
Who the hell said anything about multi-/mono-pose? But hey, nice attempt at attacking me rather than my point.
Miniatures that are bad to assemble can be both, and Gaunts are horrible to assemble. And the idea that removing two-piece heads would suddenly make them mono-pose is fething absurd. You all know that. Stop trying to make this a mono-/multi-pose thing when it's not.
Who the hell said anything about multi-/mono-pose? But hey, nice attempt at attacking me rather than my point.
Miniatures that are bad to assemble can be both, and Gaunts are horrible to assemble. And the idea that removing two-piece heads would suddenly make them mono-pose is fething absurd. You all know that. Stop trying to make this a mono-/multi-pose thing when it's not.
Of course it is. If you want the head to be separate from the body, with the head being able to be posed any way you choose, then either the head or the body needs to be in two parts to enable the ball and socket joint which is required, due to the limitations of plastic tooling. Eg, Kabalite warriors, Tactical squad, Gaunts, etc etc etc.
I'm not sure what difference it would make having the body in two parts instead of the head, apart from taking up too much sprue space, which was defo a consideration at the time?
But you know this, presumably, so god knows what the point of this conversation is
Guardsmen, fire warriors, pathfinders, some older marine torsos, ork boyz, skitarii, guardians. They all have a ball/socket head in some capacity with single piece head/torso. Maybe not the best heads re undercuts etc. but it's not impossible. Even genestealers aren't far off thinking bout it.
Where is there any game source (not novels. the novels are more inconsistent then anything else) that says the gaunts/gants are the size of large dogs?
And that 3rd ed cover. It doesn't mean anything because they are next to nothing to use as a reference for size.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Even if they did mono like the genestealer from spacehulk ( which are awesome) They become samey after the 2nd repetition. I really dig modularity on nids.
Who the hell said anything about multi-/mono-pose? But hey, nice attempt at attacking me rather than my point.
Miniatures that are bad to assemble can be both, and Gaunts are horrible to assemble. And the idea that removing two-piece heads would suddenly make them mono-pose is fething absurd. You all know that. Stop trying to make this a mono-/multi-pose thing when it's not.
Of course it is. If you want the head to be separate from the body, with the head being able to be posed any way you choose, then either the head or the body needs to be in two parts to enable the ball and socket joint which is required, due to the limitations of plastic tooling. Eg, Kabalite warriors, Tactical squad, Gaunts, etc etc etc.
I'm not sure what difference it would make having the body in two parts instead of the head, apart from taking up too much sprue space, which was defo a consideration at the time?
But you know this, presumably, so god knows what the point of this conversation is
Guardsmen, fire warriors, pathfinders, some older marine torsos, ork boyz, skitarii, guardians. They all have a ball/socket head in some capacity with single piece head/torso. Maybe not the best heads re undercuts etc. but it's not impossible. Even genestealers aren't far off thinking bout it.
Yeah, but as you imply with your "Maybe not the best heads" comment, some designs need undercuts to look good, which can't be done in one piece using high impact styrene. It's self evident which designs these are.
And that 3rd ed cover. It doesn't mean anything because they are next to nothing to use as a reference for size.
There is a Warrior as a reference there.
Warrior or a Hive Tyrant? Hive Tyrants had a head crest like warriors back then. In the picture I posted a warrior is AT LEAST double the size Space Marine. THAT isn't true in the models. Again, when are hormagaunts EVER described as being dog sized? Point to 1 single game mention of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can still get a ball socket head. You just do it the opposite way. Socket on the torso, ball on the neck. Gargoyle style. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/03 14:41:26
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
