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.

Thanks for the info Salvage!

Looks like Khador's resculpted infantry doesn't have the repeat issue going on:

Seeing more of these in the wild I'm happy to see PP went with easier to assemble and less prices vs some lines that have gone the 3d printing/stl route (like raging heroes) that are crazy fiddly an impractical in a low of ways (but do look impressive).

The Khador unit is a seven man unit instead of six, once you add in the two unshown heavy rifles.

One more snap from me. I zoomed in on this shot of all the bits and noticed a good example of potentially problematic layer lines. I'm frankly unsure how this head is going to look after I spray it black, spray it metal, contrast it, wash it and drybrush it. Could be fine? But a lot of those steps feel designed to bring out any layer lines that make it through priming

ya. that's going to look ruff from my own experience not changing FEP often enough. You'll want to sand with a file or sanding stick to try and get rid of some of that.

total 3D printer noob, is it the bump on the forehead or what?

It's several places on the center head. Basically curves/spheres, need to be built buy stacking layers and slowly shrinking the layer width. If your later height (ie the hight between each layer) is too much you don't get a curve but a step pyramid like thing like you're looking at an elevation map. You can see that in the center of the head and on the horns.

A common way of getting around this is changing the print orientation to that part isn't vertical (as horizontal doesn't have this issue as much) or shrinking the layer height (which increases the print time). That part is hard as it's got a lot of curves or changing the orientation would just move where they were though you could angel it enough to get rid of some of them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
total 3D printer noob, is it the bump on the forehead or what?

No, it's the layers of the print.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
One more snap from me. I zoomed in on this shot of all the bits and noticed a good example of potentially problematic layer lines. I'm frankly unsure how this head is going to look after I spray it black, spray it metal, contrast it, wash it and drybrush it. Could be fine? But a lot of those steps feel designed to bring out any layer lines that make it through priming

Yeah, the head looks like it was not done in the most optimal orientation for sure. Those lines will definitely be visible after priming and made worse if you wash and drybrush most likely. Really raises the question again of what printer they're using, too...

The layer lines are a concern, but also the point where the model was supported. These can be hard to see bare, and I've seen quite a few Greeblood (Greebo's 3D printed new models) painted examples where these are still present. The potential is obviously there... just not sure about the reality...

Edit: Holy cow, great pics in your album, Salvage! Those do look sweet. Can't wait to see how they come out painted

 RiTides wrote:
The layer lines are a concern, but also the point where the model was supported. These can be hard to see bare, and I've seen quite a few Greeblood (Greebo's 3D printed new models) painted examples where these are still present.

The potential is obviously there... just not sure about the reality of the present...

Yeah, I don't like that they appear to be leaving some of the support nubs on there and shipping out like that. They're much easier to remove pre-curing, and much more likely to leave worse marks if you remove after. Of course, if you use a sharp knife and slice them off and maybe a little bit of a sanding stick, you're probably fine. In general, though, it's still less clean up than mold lines and gaps, but of course that really depends on the quality of the supports in the first place.

 AduroT wrote:
The Khador unit is a seven man unit instead of six, once you add in the two unshown heavy rifles.

Weapon attachments replace models now.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Boss Salvage wrote:

As much of a bummer as broken bits in a new kit are, the reminder that I'll need to secure these things for transport is well taken. Most likely I'll keep the magnetizing going and stick them to a steel sheet, particularly with how light the minis are.

I've been converting all my foam to plastic bins with magnets. The metal Warmachine models are a little too top heavy to do that, but I'm looking forward to transporting the new armies that way.

Or you need stronger magnets When I played warmachine back in MK1 with all METAL warjacks I put some strong magnets resulting in that I could store and carry with warjacks hanging upside down from the roof of the box...

Well once I figured how to keep the MAGNET glued up to the base reliably That was the weak point of that idea...

(submerge magnet in resin was the answer)

Those Orgoth minis looked nice quality-wise (though I'm still not a fan of their design).

Nice to see no clones in the new Khador unit! Hopefully that is the standard going forward. (Did PP actually take feedback on that?)

 LunarSol wrote:
Looks like Khador's resculpted infantry doesn't have the repeat issue going on:

Those are some nice renders, shame they couldn't just revisit the old Winter Guard with updated models like this.

The Khador rifle mage Warcaster looks... 'interesting'. The wolf pelt and general look seem at odds with that rifle from an Infinity model he is holding. One foot in the steam punk world of Warmachine, the other firmly in a Sci-Fi setting.

Looks like they optimized the orientation for print time, rather than surface quality, which is weird on such a relatively small piece. Or maybe it's just a basic mistake.

Either way, this is something that should have been corrected after the first test print.

Edit: Looking at the arm piece at the bottom right of the photo, you can see another area of print lines on what appears to be a flat surface. Again, either a print time optimized orientation or one that minimizes supports at the expense of surface quality.

that rifle from an Infinity model he is holding. One foot in the steam punk world of Warmachine, the other firmly in a Sci-Fi setting.

That is one of the huge turn offs for me with MKIV (along with the lack of templates and facing) i already play infinity and i have a good size collection of that, i have no interest in turning WM/H into that(or AOS or 8th ed 40K etc..).

New warcaster and 3 attack types... I don't get PP's streamlining policy. They remove front arcs to decrease "mental load" but at the same time keep the bloated amount of rules on model cards.

Seriously, in your experience, what is the question you hear more often in moments of confusion:
"How exactly do these front arcs work, again?"
or
"What special rules do your models have, again?"

I'm looking forward to seeing whether the Archons keep their humungous list of special rules that takes up the entire back of the card in microscopic font. Decreasing mental load my ...

Cyel wrote:
New warcaster and 3 attack types... I don't get PP's streamlining policy. They remove front arcs to decrease "mental load" but at the same time keep the bloated amount of rules on model cards.

In fairness, he's a Gunmage. They've always had 3 attack types. It's kind of their thing. In practice they've never been a problem in Cygnar.

 stonehorse wrote:

The Khador rifle mage Warcaster looks... 'interesting'. The wolf pelt and general look seem at odds with that rifle from an Infinity model he is holding. One foot in the steam punk world of Warmachine, the other firmly in a Sci-Fi setting.

The main tech upgrade on that rifle is the existence of a clip. Everything else is the mechanika that every Warcaster weapon has to allow them to boost. Sloan has similar bits along her rifle to serve a similar function, though they're separated more and not covering as much of the rifle they're bolted onto.

Toofast wrote:
I never understood that. I collect sports cars and watches, which I would consider luxury hobbies.

Luxury is relative to wealth in its contemporary use. For some people the excess and comfort described by the word might be being able to do something that isn't necessary, i.e. a personal excess. For others, it might involve the waving one's digital junk around online in the sad hope that someone else sees the importance of things their wealth allows them to consume because it's not enough to conspicuously spend and to share that with friends who also spend in excess, but must also involve announcing it to random other people to stroke one's ego.

Words can have different meanings, like I consider a hobby making something, while others might consider consumption a hobby in itself.

Cyel wrote:
New warcaster and 3 attack types... I don't get PP's streamlining policy. They remove front arcs to decrease "mental load" but at the same time keep the bloated amount of rules on model cards.

Seriously, in your experience, what is the question you hear more often in moments of confusion:
"How exactly do these front arcs work, again?"
or
"What special rules do your models have, again?"

I'm looking forward to seeing whether the Archons keep their humungous list of special rules that takes up the entire back of the card in microscopic font. Decreasing mental load my ...

The problem with front arcs isn't "how do they work" its that once the game gets going 80% of the time a player is trying to move or attack they need to pause to check the facings of a half dozen models to determine free strikes, target validity, etc. TBH, with the removal of free strikes from the game the issues with front arcs drop dramatically, likewise by removing front arcs most of the issues with free strikes disappear, so I don't know that the removal of both was really needed.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Cyel wrote:
New warcaster and 3 attack types... I don't get PP's streamlining policy. They remove front arcs to decrease "mental load" but at the same time keep the bloated amount of rules on model cards.

Seriously, in your experience, what is the question you hear more often in moments of confusion:
"How exactly do these front arcs work, again?"
or
"What special rules do your models have, again?"

I'm looking forward to seeing whether the Archons keep their humungous list of special rules that takes up the entire back of the card in microscopic font. Decreasing mental load my ...

The problem with front arcs isn't "how do they work" its that once the game gets going 80% of the time a player is trying to move or attack they need to pause to check the facings of a half dozen models to determine free strikes, target validity, etc. TBH, with the removal of free strikes from the game the issues with front arcs drop dramatically, likewise by removing front arcs most of the issues with free strikes disappear, so I don't know that the removal of both was really needed.

I really wish they wouldn't have listed that bullet point as "removing free strikes". The new disengagement penalty is pretty severe and does a good job of limiting abuses from the new movement system. I found it generally kept the ability to use a model's engagement range to protect my caster, in many ways better than I could in mk3.

Also I hated trying to determine front arcs. Even when they’re painted on the base it’s amazing how bad people are at lining that up. And then there’s the half of the people who ain’t marked em. It’s cool in theory, tedious in practice.

Removing facing was at the very top of my wishlist for MK4, since it was a major time suck and, as Aduro mentions, wasn't particularly well supported by PP (look at Infinity's new bases or hell huge bases in WMH to see how they could have designed for it). I didn't expect the weirdness with units teleporting and all that, but I'm still willing to believe it's a feature and not a bug.

The theory is good and it seems sensible on paper, but in practice it often just isn't fun and doesn't even make sense for a lot of models.

I do think facing has a place in wargames, just not on everything by default.

I really like facing as a mechanic, I really wish more games would use it. That said, in Warmachine it mattered in game time far more than it had meaningful applications in the rules. I like how it contributed to Warmachine's American football vibe, but the more different games I play the more clunky all the unit manipulation in Warmachine felt for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do think facing has a place in wargames, just not on everything by default.

I think part of the issue is the 180 arc. It creates a kind of weirdness where it covers a pretty huge area and rarely results in blind spots that matter.

Part of me prefers the X shaped facing of something like X-Wing where your blind spot is technically smaller (90 instead of 180) but you can make the front 90 more important than the side 90's.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The theory is good and it seems sensible on paper, but in practice it often just isn't fun and doesn't even make sense for a lot of models.

I do think facing has a place in wargames, just not on everything by default.

Facing is not only hugely important as a game mechanic it is also an issue of immersion.

While for some it is key, others like you said don't consider it for massed infantry for speed of play but things like vehicles it is still important to prevent the whirling dervish phenomenon ala 9th ed 40K

Games i play and the importance of facing/average army size per player in minis for a full scale game
.classic battletech- huge/4 or 5
.infinity-huge/10
.warmachine MKIII-huge/10-20
.DUST 1947-vehicles only/15-20+
.40K 5th edition-vehicles only/30+
.B5 wars-huge/2-4 capitol class ships + small craft/escorts
.victory at sea-huge/4-8
.BFG-huge/8-12

The games that are more skirmish level have the extra layers of rules for more depth of play because they are not massed army games that would bog down with huge model counts

I didn't follow WM/H past like, Apotheosis, and everyone makes it sound like the engagement size got bigger, not smaller. If they'd stayed small I could have seen moving facings to just Jacks and having that matter, do an X-shaped facing diagram and have the arms and maybe even rear armor matter for a more detailed, smaller scale battle. Doesn't seem like that's at all the direction they've chosen, so ditching the facings probably makes sense.