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 Cadian arms fit the Death Korps bodies and the new shoulder pad design is more similar to the DK ones. I've seen a few people kitbash using only plastic kits and it works really well.

For posterity's sake, the Leman Russ is AUD$89, and the Baneblade is AUD$165.

Let's see what they are come Saturday.

[EDIT]: I never liked the Regimental Standard, and this latest entry trying to justify why they come in batteries of 2 really hits home as to why.

 Gert wrote:
The Cadian arms fit the Death Korps bodies and the new shoulder pad design is more similar to the DK ones. I've seen a few people kitbash using only plastic kits and it works really well.

They absolutely do, but the Field Ordnance Batteries that I'm assuming the poster I replied to do not have shoulderpads and it would look funny seeing Krieg with rolled up sleeves.

That Creed model is hideous. Looks like a nanny impersonating an officer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
For posterity's sake, the Leman Russ is AUD$89, and the Baneblade is AUD$165.

Let's see what they are come Saturday.

[EDIT]: I never liked the Regimental Standard, and this latest entry trying to justify why they come in batteries of 2 really hits home as to why.

Yeah, we all know it comes down to how many they could fit in a box based on their various calculations of profit:plastic ratios and such. So many other things can be taken in 3's. Sentinels, heavy weapon teams, squadrons of leman russes... But this random thing? Nope. Because only 2 come in the box, and it would be silly to ask players to buy a second box to fit a 3rd in a unit and have another left over. We know this. GW knows this. You don't need to make a silly tongue-in-cheek 'wanna-meme' post about it.

I mean, I ended up with 12 of the things, so I'm going to do three of each type, and then convert the remaining 3 into light-AA batteries using leftover quad Autocannon parts from the old Aegis Defence Line boxes.

Then I'm going to continue to ignore this train-wreck of a Guard Codex, where Scions get nothing, Kasrikin are a head taller than Guardsmen, Yarrick is gone, our main leader looks like he got lost on the way to an AoS cosplay event, and Cadians/Kriegers/Catachans are suddenly Aspect Warriors...

drbored wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
For posterity's sake, the Leman Russ is AUD$89, and the Baneblade is AUD$165.

Let's see what they are come Saturday.

[EDIT]: I never liked the Regimental Standard, and this latest entry trying to justify why they come in batteries of 2 really hits home as to why.

Yeah, we all know it comes down to how many they could fit in a box based on their various calculations of profit:plastic ratios and such. So many other things can be taken in 3's. Sentinels, heavy weapon teams, squadrons of leman russes... But this random thing? Nope. Because only 2 come in the box, and it would be silly to ask players to buy a second box to fit a 3rd in a unit and have another left over. We know this. GW knows this. You don't need to make a silly tongue-in-cheek 'wanna-meme' post about it.

I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.

Andykp wrote:
I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.

It's not about why they put two in the box, it's about why they had to make the unit size a fixed two models, no more no less. No model no rules is a profoundly stupid and anti-customer design philosophy and GW's lame attempt at a meme defending it deserves every bit of mockery it gets.

Does open you for ridicule for going nuts about joke though. But if you feel embarrasing yourself is worth it feel free. I'm having good laugh at you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, I ended up with 12 of the things, so I'm going to do three of each type, and then convert the remaining 3 into light-AA batteries using leftover quad Autocannon parts from the old Aegis Defence Line boxes.

Then I'm going to continue to ignore this train-wreck of a Guard Codex, where Scions get nothing, Kasrikin are a head taller than Guardsmen, Yarrick is gone, our main leader looks like he got lost on the way to an AoS cosplay event, and Cadians/Kriegers/Catachans are suddenly Aspect Warriors...

I know the feeling.

I'm more smarting over the loss of Special Weapon teams, Vets and Conscripts. How many models does that put on the shelf?

And weird rules about taking dupes of special weapons.

AND the new weird basing rules...

GW seems to think I like nothing more than rebasing and swapping weapons to accommodate rules that will be changed in under a year.

When my instinct frankly is to draw a line and say I'm done.

I never got around to gluing my 2nd Ed heavy weapons teams to 60mm bases.

I based and painted up multiple mdf bases to put them on for games but never glued them down, mainly because it was easier and took less space when storing them in cases.

Sounds like they're adding the vehicle upgrade sprue back into the boxes. It's kinda funny how new players thinks this is great, but they don't know that all Guard vehicles came with them originally. GW just removed them and sold them separately.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
No model no rules is a profoundly stupid and anti-customer design philosophy

It also doesn't apply to Field Ordnance Batteries because the box has a sergeant and (I think) a vox too, yet neither has rules in the codex.

What are the "new weird basing rules"?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AND the new weird basing rules...

...what weird basing rules?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

our main leader looks like he got lost on the way to an AoS cosplay event...

You don't like Elector Counts?????

M.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AND the new weird basing rules...

...what weird basing rules?

You rebase miniatures

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AND the new weird basing rules...

...what weird basing rules?

You rebase miniatures M.

Depends on the change, and how many finished models it effects.

Jarms48 wrote:
Sounds like they're adding the vehicle upgrade sprue back into the boxes. It's kinda funny how new players thinks this is great, but they don't know that all Guard vehicles came with them originally. GW just removed them and sold them separately.

The Vehicle Accessory sprue was in the old 3rd edition kits, while the 5th? 6th? Edition remake of the Chimaera and Russ didn't include it, but were technically new kits. The Basilisk continued however, since it used the new Chimaera hull and old basilisk gun platform, and would not have had a hull weapon without the upgrade kit's heavy flamer.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
Sounds like they're adding the vehicle upgrade sprue back into the boxes. It's kinda funny how new players thinks this is great, but they don't know that all Guard vehicles came with them originally. GW just removed them and sold them separately.

The Vehicle Accessory sprue was in the old 3rd edition kits, while the 5th? 6th? Edition remake of the Chimaera and Russ didn't include it, but were technically new kits. The Basilisk continued however, since it used the new Chimaera hull and old basilisk gun platform, and would not have had a hull weapon without the upgrade kit's heavy flamer.

It also provides a single soldier, which could be used to put a crewman on the Basilisk platform. Prior to the Basilisk hybrid, the previous box was packaged with a Cadian heavy-weapons team crew for the crew. Both look a bit weird to be honest.

The accessory sprue doesn't fit the new vehicles so well, the hull profiles are slightly different. Serviceable but not ideal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AND the new weird basing rules...

...what weird basing rules?

You rebase miniatures M.

Depends on the change, and how many finished models it effects.

I still don't get what this is referring to.

 Haighus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AND the new weird basing rules...

...what weird basing rules?

You rebase miniatures M.

Depends on the change, and how many finished models it effects.

I still don't get what this is referring to.

Presumably it's about modern GW eschewing standardized base sizes in favor of using unregulated base sizes that fit a sculpt at least in the mind of whoever gets to decide on that at GW. Where in the past every infantryman would have been on a 25mm base, every cavalryman on a 25mm x 50mm base, and so forth, it's now not that simple anymore. Normal soldiers are on 25mm bases while physically identical command squad soldiers are on 28mm bases. In the Stormtrooper/Grenadier department, Scions are on 25mm bases and Kasrkin have bigger ones. Roughriders go on one size of oval base, Lord Horseyman needs a bigger one for his scenic base and/or ego.

It's not a rule per se, more like a guideline with how it's commonly taken that your models should have the base they came with or whatever the current equivalent comes with, but it can be annoying that range redos set new, varying and irregular standards when you have an army from a time when bases were far more regulated. It can make adding to your army annoying if you like your army to look uniform. Imperial Guard isn't the first army to suffer from this, but it bites every time it happens.

 Geifer wrote:

Presumably it's about modern GW eschewing standardized base sizes in favor of using unregulated base sizes that fit a sculpt at least in the mind of whoever gets to decide on that at GW. Where in the past every infantryman would have been on a 25mm base, every cavalryman on a 25mm x 50mm base, and so forth, it's now not that simple anymore. Normal soldiers are on 25mm bases while physically identical command squad soldiers are on 28mm bases. In the Stormtrooper/Grenadier department, Scions are on 25mm bases and Kasrkin have bigger ones. Roughriders go on one size of oval base, Lord Horseyman needs a bigger one for his scenic base and/or ego.

It's not a rule per se, more like a guideline with how it's commonly taken that your models should have the base they came with or whatever the current equivalent comes with, but it can be annoying that range redos set new, varying and irregular standards when you have an army from a time when bases were far more regulated. It can make adding to your army annoying if you like your army to look uniform. Imperial Guard isn't the first army to suffer from this, but it bites every time it happens.

It became as issue because tourneys started insisting on the current base sizes (previously it was what the model was sold with). You know, identical terrain, identical bases, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dread Master wrote:
That Creed model is hideous. Looks like a nanny impersonating an officer.

I do know several officers who would look like that in dress uniform with a big coat...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

drbored wrote:

Yeah, we all know it comes down to how many they could fit in a box based on their various calculations of profit:plastic ratios and such. So many other things can be taken in 3's. Sentinels, heavy weapon teams, squadrons of leman russes... But this random thing? Nope. Because only 2 come in the box, and it would be silly to ask players to buy a second box to fit a 3rd in a unit and have another left over. We know this. GW knows this. You don't need to make a silly tongue-in-cheek 'wanna-meme' post about it.

Well even the 3 per squadron thing is an artifact of original vehicle boxes and is in stark contrast to actual militaries that like multiples of 4. (Which Epic amusingly went for because the suppression system doesn't work with squadrons of 3...)

 Geifer wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
AND the new weird basing rules...

...what weird basing rules?

You rebase miniatures M.

Depends on the change, and how many finished models it effects.

I still don't get what this is referring to.

Presumably it's about modern GW eschewing standardized base sizes in favor of using unregulated base sizes that fit a sculpt at least in the mind of whoever gets to decide on that at GW. Where in the past every infantryman would have been on a 25mm base, every cavalryman on a 25mm x 50mm base, and so forth, it's now not that simple anymore. Normal soldiers are on 25mm bases while physically identical command squad soldiers are on 28mm bases. In the Stormtrooper/Grenadier department, Scions are on 25mm bases and Kasrkin have bigger ones. Roughriders go on one size of oval base, Lord Horseyman needs a bigger one for his scenic base and/or ego.

It's not a rule per se, more like a guideline with how it's commonly taken that your models should have the base they came with or whatever the current equivalent comes with, but it can be annoying that range redos set new, varying and irregular standards when you have an army from a time when bases were far more regulated. It can make adding to your army annoying if you like your army to look uniform. Imperial Guard isn't the first army to suffer from this, but it bites every time it happens.

I loathe the new base sizes.

Battle sisters are on 32mm
Except Repentia who are on 28mm
Ministorum models all ended up on 25mm whether they're old or new sculpts
Except the Blackstone Fortress not-Missionary/Preacher on 32mms
The Hospitaller has a 50mm
But Celestine only gets 40mm
Penitent Engines went down to 50mm, and match Paragons
Except for Vahl who has a 60mm

 Haighus wrote:
What are the "new weird basing rules"?

Command squads and Kasrkin on 28.5 mm bases, heavy weapons on 50mm (down from 60mm), there's probably more. But no. I ain't rebasing $%^#.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I thought it was quite amusing l little dig at people moaning on the internet about it. We all know why they did put two in the box, they know we all know, so let’s have a little fun with those upset by it.

It's not about why they put two in the box, it's about why they had to make the unit size a fixed two models, no more no less. No model no rules is a profoundly stupid and anti-customer design philosophy and GW's lame attempt at a meme defending it deserves every bit of mockery it gets.

Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

Dread Master wrote:
That Creed model is hideous. Looks like a nanny impersonating an officer.

Reminds me of Aunt Lydia.

Dread Master wrote:
That Creed model is hideous. Looks like a nanny impersonating an officer.

GW could not provide a good paintjob for a face if their immortal souls depended on it.
All in all its great to see they did not jam a bionic eye on the face, an insane ponytail as bis as an actual horse tail, nor have a floating skull hovering about.
However, they should have an alternative left hand holding a cigar.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, I ended up with 12 of the things,

Probably should've bought zero if you wanted to prove a point to GW

Dudeface wrote:


Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? They never existed before so it's not a change to anyones list etc. I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

It's hardly the worst thing in the world, but it does kind of straight jacket fans. Maybe I scratch build 3 or them, maybe I have 1 of the old FWQ heavy mortars, maybe I only have the points for 1 in my army or maybe I have 4 and only 1 heavy support slot.

It would cost GW nothing to say Field Artillery 1-4 guns, but they didn't.

Dudeface wrote:
Sorry if this especially dense even by my standard, but surely the fact they're in units of 2 is really utterly irrelevant for literally anything? Does it matter? Who is upset by it and why? I can promise you if they were in units of 1-3 people would be up in arms about having to buy 2 boxes, sure they could be 2-4, or 2-6, or 2-40 but what does it really matter that anyone needs to be angry about it? How is this in any way "no models no rules"?

Units of 3 and multiples of 3 has been a Guard thing for eons. Tanks come in squadrons of three. Heavy weapon squads come in threes. Sentinels come in threes. A Leman Russ company has 3 squadrons of 3 (+1 command tank). It's a thematic element that has remained fairly consistent for literal decades, and now these come in units of two. And they only come in units of two because they come two to a sprue. There is literally no other reason. You can't even bring units of 2-4 or some multiple. It's a fixed amount, specifically dictated by the sprue and the sprue alone.

And that's how it's an expression of "No model No Rule", because the rules are specifically limited by exactly what the kit is, with no room for expansion or even contraction (ie. units of 1 to 2).

And as the Kid said, GW would have lost nothing by allowing units of 1-4.

I think there would have been precedent for 4 too. Couldn't heavy mortars and thudd guns be taken in batteries of 4 in the old DKoK lists?