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.

Voss wrote:

Billicus wrote:
They're not *that* noticeable even in these relative close-ups, at table distances they're barely gonna register.

Disagree. They're really noticeable.

They were my first impression takeaway from the reveal. If they were required for casting, they should've designed bases with recesses, like the old epic bases.

You can't not notice once you know they're there

 kodos wrote:
so the bases are cast between the legs and not underneath, making it hard to cover with base decoration and will be a problem removing them

not the best idea for the models

As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?



When I sand/flock my bases, these GW troop models are all going to look like they have piles of mud between their legs.
:-(

Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 kodos wrote:
so the bases are cast between the legs and not underneath, making it hard to cover with base decoration and will be a problem removing them

not the best idea for the models

As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?



When I sand/flock my bases, these GW troop models are all going to look like they have piles of mud between their legs.
:-(

Whose models are those? Where can one get them?

So what are the chances they go back to metric for IL? I actually like the idea of centimeters instead of inches.

 Malika2 wrote:

Whose models are those? Where can one get them?

They're Dropzone Commander, formerly hawk wargames now TTCombat

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

It also means you can throw spare infantry models onto other unit bases & terrain much easier, which I suspect is intentional.

I do think a big part of the issue is that these studio models have recessed shading right on the joins for some reason. If that's the same colour as the rest of the base and viewed a bit further out than this zoomed-in photo, you won't really notice during a game.

 vadersson wrote:
So what are the chances they go back to metric for IL? I actually like the idea of centimeters instead of inches.

One of the pictures on the new Epic website showed red whippy sticks, metric whippy sticks were traditionally blue, so looks like new Epic will be Imperial.

I prefer cm... however Epic mostly used increments of 5cm, which is ~2", so it's not like they were using the granularity afforded by centimetres anyway.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?

guess because everyone is doing it that way and GW must be different

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground

people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....

 xttz wrote:

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

It also means you can throw spare infantry models onto other unit bases & terrain much easier, which I suspect is intentional.

I do think a big part of the issue is that these studio models have recessed shading right on the joins for some reason. If that's the same colour as the rest of the base and viewed a bit further out than this zoomed-in photo, you won't really notice during a game.

I actually think they're going to be more noticeable in real life, because photos are static the not-so-tactical-rocks can be hidden by just painting them the same colour as the base, but in real life where your view of the models is constantly changing, I think it'll stand out more.

I'll certainly be looking to trim them off. If the models are plastic, I don't see why gluing the feet to the base without the lump would be a problem. My experience with 3d printed Epic models is they tend to break at the knees or hips/thighs rather than the foot-ground connection anyway.

Concerning major influences from 2nd Space Marine:

What specifics do we know? Do we have the order system, CAF, army building via cards, destructible terrain, etc?

 kodos wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

As GW are the Rolls Royce / Ferrari (or whatever they claim) of the mini making world, why couldn't they have done the troop bases more like this?

guess because everyone is doing it that way and GW must be different

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground

people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....

Frankly I just don't buy into the notion that they'd be impossible to hide. Or even difficult to hide. Would I just clip them off in some instances? Sure. I can't though, see why it makes it any more or less difficult to disguise them with basing decoration/texture between their legs as opposed to underneath them.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Honestly I prefer the GW method here as it means the position of models on the base isn't dictated by the slots. I didn't even notice the tabs existed until it was pointed out on here and can't see how they'd be that difficult to cover/blend into the base texture.

Well, that is why the strip bases had actually multiple positions... I can't find a photo of the sprue at the moment, but IIRC, there were 8 bases to the sprue, each with different hole distribution.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Concerning major influences from 2nd Space Marine:

What specifics do we know? Do we have the order system, CAF, army building via cards, destructible terrain, etc?

Well, we’ve spotted marching Order Counters from an image. CAF is a guess at the moment, based on “nod and a wink” in a WarCom article. Destructible terrain has been explicitly mentioned.

Army Building we don’t know. There are no cards shown in the boxed set, but that doesn’t stop them being added as an optional purchase.

I don't think those tabs will that be difficult to hide with a layer of sand or other basing material.

And even if they are not, they are likely to only be noticeable in zoomed/macro lense shots, as we are seeing here. In practice they won't be noticeable on the tabletop.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Concerning major influences from 2nd Space Marine:

What specifics do we know? Do we have the order system, CAF, army building via cards, destructible terrain, etc?

Nothing really other than that line in the mentions, and that it won't be exactly the same.

We can infer some things, that Titan hit location dice won't be used, or flamer/barrage templates, or the order tokens themselves - although that is assuming that the photos we have seen are of the entire box content, and there isn't a sheet with push-out tokens.

So perhaps it doesn't say a lot, but, at least it means a few bullet points we can take away, such as it not being based on Epic 40k, or a completely new scratch-built set of rules.

 kodos wrote:

it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground

people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....

Still, this new version is far better than the old one with round base under the feet. Because it was a bigger PITA to remove and it was even more noticeable if you dared not use sloted bases for the infantry units. Meaning restricting choices on how to put them on their unit bases.

I also agree with the others with it not being that eye-catching at the level of a game (unless you do paint them with contrasted colors in comparison to the base). You don't do zoomed close-ups like in the picture most of the time. It's only a matter for nitpicking.

 Pacific wrote:
3) The army construction system of companies, special and support cards, which was *so* good I have never understood why GW didn't use similar for all of their other games.

Well for one they have been moving more and more toward idea you buy box, you can field. No "you also need to buy that and that and that" or "because you have X and Y can't take that box as well".

So unless they sell models in box that fills card completely they can just slot in doesn't fit well to where GW been moving toward

 Pacific wrote:


Nothing really other than that line in the mentions, and that it won't be exactly the same.

We can infer some things, that Titan hit location dice won't be used, or flamer/barrage templates, or the order tokens themselves - although that is assuming that the photos we have seen are of the entire box content, and there isn't a sheet with push-out tokens.

So perhaps it doesn't say a lot, but, at least it means a few bullet points we can take away, such as it not being based on Epic 40k, or a completely new scratch-built set of rules.

We have seen the back of the box on the https://thehorusheresy.com/legions-imperialis website. There's a pushout sheet with what looks like order tokens, flamer/round templates and a scatter dice. No left/right/up/down dice tho.

And you can do the army building via companies/platoons/squadrons/support etc without the cards, Flames of War have done exactly that for 20 years now. Whether GW will stick with that is another question, but it feels like that's something they would do nowadays (buy this box and it gets you the exact contents for these support options) for example.

It will be nice to get to use my scatter die and templates again since 40K moved away from them. I can’t make out all the orders on the reference sheet. Anyone know what they all are. I can see:
First Fire
Advanced
Charge
Fall Back

The last one looks like a double helix, some sort of heal or rally order?

Thanks,
Duncan

Looks like

First Fire
Advance
March
Charge
Fall Back

To me, all with "Orders" as a suffix.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:
Frankly I just don't buy into the notion that they'd be impossible to hide. Or even difficult to hide. Would I just clip them off in some instances? Sure. I can't though, see why it makes it any more or less difficult to disguise them with basing decoration/texture between their legs as opposed to underneath them.

The tactical turds are about ankle height, so to "hide" them in basing it'd take relatively large basing material (whereas most people use very fine basing material when basing Epic to match the scale).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

 kodos wrote:

it is not about that you need slots, but that there is plastic that you cannot hide because someone though it is a good idea to put the tabs between the legs and not underneath
and you cannot put the models freely around that why either because you will see the tab if they are not on the ground

people go crazy with models having tabs that are easy to hide with base decoration, but with tabs that are impossible to hide, it does not matter.....

Still, this new version is far better than the old one with round base under the feet. Because it was a bigger PITA to remove and it was even more noticeable if you dared not use sloted bases for the infantry units. Meaning restricting choices on how to put them on their unit bases.

But because it was below their feet, you could build up basing material/filler to the same height and the model would stand on top of it, the tactical turds stick up ankle high so when you build up the basing material high enough to hide them, it'll be like they're wading through the basing material.

I also agree with the others with it not being that eye-catching at the level of a game (unless you do paint them with contrasted colors in comparison to the base). You don't do zoomed close-ups like in the picture most of the time. It's only a matter for nitpicking.

I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked.

At this point, I reckon 3D printed models are winning over GW's plastics when it comes to infantry at a fraction of the price. I fully expect the Galactic Crusaders line will start getting take down notices soon.

With flock etc, you usually obscure the feet of epic scale minis, I think the tabs will help avoid this

Glad it looks like mostly second ed.......but I was also hoping they would incorporate the blast markers, they added a lot to the game. But we know modern GW hates actually using morale in game for more than a token effort.

If you really really hate the tactical rocks, just get some sanding sticks. Could it have been done better, sure, but it apparently wasn't.

At least its not like first edition space hulk that showed these cool blue plastic terminators on the back....then when you opened the box you got a bunch of "charming" bricks. I remember being so pissed off when I opened that box.....luckily the game was awesome. I wasn't expecting to get the metal painted ones on the side of the box.......but when you show a bunch of plain blue plastic guys on the back....thats what you expect. No amount of "Contents might vary from those shown" prepares you for the lumps inside.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't think it's "zomg!1!11 ThIs iS unUsaBle" levels of bad... but these are going to be premium priced models so they deserved to be nitpicked.

You are wildly overstating the issue. The blobs around their feet only show up because the unit bases that GW have designed for them are so flat and featureless (although you can see that the GW painters have tried to make the blobs look like tactical rocks). I think what they did makes sense from a model design perspective - you want these small models to have decent point of contact on the base. Just put a few bits of gravel (rubble) around the feet, and some staticgrass, and the blobs will disappear.

Now that I've seen that the figures are about twice the size as the old Epic figures, what about the vehicles? Anyone got a size comparison for 1E Space Marine vehicles (which is what I have) and the size of these new models?

 Stormonu wrote:
Now that I've seen that the figures are about twice the size as the old Epic figures, what about the vehicles? Anyone got a size comparison for 1E Space Marine vehicles (which is what I have) and the size of these new models?

I don't think they are twice as big, epic sizes were very inconsistent, later scouts towered over the original marines. There was no way, no matter how you crushed them that 10 epic tacticals were fitting in a rhino...which oddly enough made them comparable to 40k scale (cause thats not happening either). Size of the vehicles probably wont matter so much, (they even said you could use the legacy minis if you want...how long that policy lasts is anybodys guess) but I'm going to reserve printing up stuff until I get the new ones in hand so I can at least be close. My guess is that like the titans they will be larger and the old epic scale vehicles will look out of place.

The base/feet of the models is likely where they are attached to the sprue. The plastic seems like a way to make that area more solid, and not bend or snap the knees of the model when clipping them off the sprue.

I see the 'Orbital Knights' are still a available from Etsy, a good option for anyone that doesn't have their own printer. Will be interesting to see if they stay up.

MaxT wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


Nothing really other than that line in the mentions, and that it won't be exactly the same.

We can infer some things, that Titan hit location dice won't be used, or flamer/barrage templates, or the order tokens themselves - although that is assuming that the photos we have seen are of the entire box content, and there isn't a sheet with push-out tokens.

So perhaps it doesn't say a lot, but, at least it means a few bullet points we can take away, such as it not being based on Epic 40k, or a completely new scratch-built set of rules.

We have seen the back of the box on the https://thehorusheresy.com/legions-imperialis website. There's a pushout sheet with what looks like order tokens, flamer/round templates and a scatter dice. No left/right/up/down dice tho.

And you can do the army building via companies/platoons/squadrons/support etc without the cards, Flames of War have done exactly that for 20 years now. Whether GW will stick with that is another question, but it feels like that's something they would do nowadays (buy this box and it gets you the exact contents for these support options) for example.

Ah thanks, I had not seen the push-out tokens sheet! That makes me more hopeful

On the "plastic turd" between the legs issue:

While not ideal, this just doesn't seem like that big a deal to alter/remove. If you're a perfectionist about your minis, you likely have the skill to do this. No worse than the old slotta bases.

On 2nd ed. Space Marine force building:

Cards could very well be sold separately, much the same way Titan weapon cards or command terminals were done for AT18. If the system is close to SM2e, then I actually hope they do something along those lines.

Unit Cards also can feature Profiles and Rules for those.