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.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Wait. There's a new 'marine codex coming soon? .

There's always a new marine codex coming soon.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Rules for"Drop pods" actually existed long before the model. Back in 3rd edition you could have a "Drop Pod Assault" force. The "drop pod" was just the 5-inch blast marker you set troops under. I want to say it limited you to Terminators, Dreadnoughts, Scouts, and Speeders.

At the very start of 3rd ed, they also released this little guy for a touring in-store event here in Oz, with different rules to the codex - treating the pod as an actual model rather than just a deployment mechanic.



New kit does at least look a lot easier to build. Removing the weapons does seem to also remove any point in having it on the table, though.

Wow, I've seen that drop pod before, but I thought it was just a custom casting that used the back end of the OOP plastic Land Speeder.

I mean, that's technically what it is. It was made by Matt Weaver during his time with the Oz studio (before he went on to work for Forgeworld) from plasticard, foamcore and assorted plastic bits, and then cast for the roadshow.

 LunarSol wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
For sure you can have a closed version right?

Nope. Article clearly states they are always open:

the endlessly fiddly doors that spawned a thousand arguments about vehicle footprints are now fastened firmly in their open position.

It IS entirely possible that GW will cut this model in such a way that a simple hinged-door conversion will be impossible: their intent is clearly that the piece be modelled with open doors (according to Warcom, who have been known to make mistakes).

But then, why make the rocks optional? If it's a fixed build with no possibility for conversion, why bother? The key will be whether or not the doors maintain the shape of an exterior on what what would be the bottom of the model in the fixed open position. If they do maintain that shape, conversion should be easy. If they don't, it will be impossible. And I'm not confident in GW's ability to make good choices.

 Tastyfish wrote:
I suspect a closed door option STL will appear within hours of the sprue pics getting into the wild. Assuming there's not some pegs that need to be cut off that would let you pose the doors in other orientations for diorama purposes.

The problem there is that hinge assemblies typically require the frame and the door to work together to achieve the effect- usually in the form of pins on the door that fit into sockets on the frame. Simply printing doors with pins alone will not achieve the effect. A static closed door might be possible.. But nowhere near as interesting. GW published an article in White Dwarf that showed you how to hinge a rhino top hatch- not a terribly hard conversion, so if by some slim stroke of luck, GW actually molds the kit with exterior door surfacing, that technique should work here. I haven't built the little drop pods that debuted with Kill Team: Rogue Trader yet because I was planning to hinge them too.

 Tastyfish wrote:

But I can certainly see the logic, I would have thought that drop pods need to be pretty cheap (money wise) as they're something you generally might want a couple of but they're pretty boring units on the battlefield.

Classic drop pods WERE cheap. Molding a hinge does not add a lot of expense. These, coming two to a box will be at least double the cost of the classic kit... And the real fear is that the reason they come two to a box is that someone at GW thought: HMMM. 5 doors = 5 dudes, and that's okay because there's precedent for vehicles with squad splitting rules, so we'll just sell them in boxes of two and you need to use both to deploy a single 10 man unit.

Because if THAT happens, you aren't trying to find table real estate for one of these things, but TWO OF THEM!

The revised Drop Pod kit looks like something that was done in a hurry. The 'modular terrain' looks rushed and kind of rubbish. And it has a huge footprint.

I know the Drop Pod's design is well established and iconic, but the best solution to the problems it creates on the tabletop would be to redesign the ramps so that it doesn't take up so much room. Maybe something like that (i.e. a Primaris Drop Pod) is in the works, and this kit is just an interim solution.

I actually don't mind this at all. The closing door gimmick was kinda meh anyways. I do think its funny that the weapons were removed due to them being a safety hazard yet they put sentry guns on cargo crates. Lets not pretend that most games of 40K (or at least the games they're marketing the whole game towards) have extremely dense terrain setups were the footprint is gonna screw with placement.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
I do think its funny that the weapons were removed due to them being a safety hazard yet they put sentry guns on cargo crates.

It was just a throwaway comment, and clearly tongue-in-cheek. The actual reason they removed the weapons is more likely just to keep the kit as simple as possible.

 PenitentJake wrote:
But then, why make the rocks optional?

Because they rocks look terrible on the wrong table. If they had been moulded on without the option to remove them, people would have hated it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The article explicitly states they cannot be built closed:

"the endlessly fiddly doors that spawned a thousand arguments about vehicle footprints are now fastened firmly in their open position."

Lol: They actually TOLD me not to buy the new model.... Genius!

It would just been easier to say the doors blast off upon landing... and all the problems would've been solved.

 insaniak wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:
But then, why make the rocks optional?

Because they rocks look terrible on the wrong table. If they had been moulded on without the option to remove them, people would have hated it.

And presumably so you can mix them around so not every single pod lands in 100% identical craters.

 insaniak wrote:

 PenitentJake wrote:
But then, why make the rocks optional?

Because they rocks look terrible on the wrong table. If they had been moulded on without the option to remove them, people would have hated it.

That hasn't stopped them with every other example of a tactical rock in any game system they produce, why is the drop pod the one model where the rocks are optional and not, say, the LoV Grymnir? Do those rocks not look terrible in the middle of a Boarding Action?

I just think them hailing this as an improved model when they have removed features and options is disingenuous. It's 2025, if they had a problem with the door mechanism they have the technology to rectify it rather than just getting rid of it. If there was an issue with the model's footprint being inconsistent then they could have either written rules around that, or just ignored it like they do with every other transport that has opening doors. Removing functional features and game options is a sledgehammer approach

Little worried that they've put out a Land Raider article at the same time, are we going to get a "new and improved" Land Raider with missing weapons and sealed doors too?

Charax wrote:

That hasn't stopped them with every other example of a tactical rock in any game system they produce, why is the drop pod the one model where the rocks are optional and not, say, the LoV Grymnir? Do those rocks not look terrible in the middle of a Boarding Action?

Yes, indeed they do. So maybe this is a sign that GW are finally learning that keeping the tactical rocks optional where possible is better design...

I just think them hailing this as an improved model when they have removed features and options is disingenuous. It's 2025, if they had a problem with the door mechanism they have the technology to rectify it rather than just getting rid of it. If there was an issue with the model's footprint being inconsistent then they could have either written rules around that, or just ignored it like they do with every other transport that has opening doors. Removing functional features and game options is a sledgehammer approach

I dunno, I see their point on this one. The old pod is a fiddly model to assemble, in an industry where customers increasingly want 'easy and quick' over 'detailed'.

Fully articulated vehicle models are great for modellers, but are arguably bad design for gaming miniatures. If there is no in -game reason for the vehicle to be able to open and close it's doors, then having movable doors on the model is just making the kit more complicated for no good game-related reason. Keen modellers can take a basic kit and add door hinges. Gamers with less interest in model building just want a model they can assemble and put on the table.

Likewise the basic Knight chassis coming with fixed legs.

It’s….easier. A more universally friendly kit, for pretty much any level of model building experience. It’s really had to build it wrong, and once assembled is nicely balanced and steady on the tabletop.

Yet, the knee joints and that aren’t especially thick, precisely to make it easier to break those assemblies down for reposing, should that be your jam.

And whether we like it or not, the same goes for single loadout characters. Anyone being able to buy off the peg and and not miss out on possible wargear combos levels the playing field. If you want to convert up or scratch build? Theres still nothing preventing you doing that. Which is often, erroneously in my opinion, presented in the community as GW discouraging or outright forbidding scratch builds and conversion.

Tactical rocks are there to give variation in leg position for infantry. If they make the infantry rock optional they need to provide either variations in what is being stood upon or options in leg position, while then has knock on implications for other parts of the model pose. To a certain extent debris is debris. Even in spaceships, and especially Imperial ships, there are quite a lot of rocks in the form of marble statues and ridiculous fixtures and fittings. Mining or industrial ships are likely to have random accumulations of rocks as raw materials, so it’s not utterly stupid for rocks to be present there.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Tastyfish wrote:

But I can certainly see the logic, I would have thought that drop pods need to be pretty cheap (money wise) as they're something you generally might want a couple of but they're pretty boring units on the battlefield.

Classic drop pods WERE cheap. Molding a hinge does not add a lot of expense. These, coming two to a box will be at least double the cost of the classic kit... And the real fear is that the reason they come two to a box is that someone at GW thought: HMMM. 5 doors = 5 dudes, and that's okay because there's precedent for vehicles with squad splitting rules, so we'll just sell them in boxes of two and you need to use both to deploy a single 10 man unit.

The expense part comes in when you realise they can cut in half the number of needed door components. The current kit has an inside and outside piece for each door, but fixing the doors open removes the need for outside detail. This kit can now consist of 2x sprue for the pod base, then 5x smaller identical sprues with 2 struts & 2 doors, for 10 of each total. That's why they come in pairs.

This will be a cheaper / smaller injection mold that the previous kit, but it's worth noting that 'cheaper' only applies to GW's own costs. These are not going to be cheap for customers heh.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And whether we like it or not, the same goes for single loadout characters. Anyone being able to buy off the peg and and not miss out on possible wargear combos levels the playing field. If you want to convert up or scratch build? Theres still nothing preventing you doing that. Which is often, erroneously in my opinion, presented in the community as GW discouraging or outright forbidding scratch builds and conversion.

I have to disagree on this one, but only because of the way GW implemented it. Removing options from characters rather than making kits with previously missing options added was, IMO, the wrong way to go. Making characters easy to build was a good idea. Making them boring... Less so.

Likewise, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with removing the weapon on the drop pod... It's difficult to see a good reason for doing that, as it makes it a really boring model to put on the table... It's just terrain, now.

So the Legions Imperialis Drop Pod kit is going to be more complicated than the 40K one ? What a time to be hobbying!

 insaniak wrote:
I dunno, I see their point on this one. The old pod is a fiddly model to assemble, in an industry where customers increasingly want 'easy and quick' over 'detailed'.

Fully articulated vehicle models are great for modellers, but are arguably bad design for gaming miniatures. If there is no in -game reason for the vehicle to be able to open and close it's doors, then having movable doors on the model is just making the kit more complicated for no good game-related reason. Keen modellers can take a basic kit and add door hinges. Gamers with less interest in model building just want a model they can assemble and put on the table.

GW are definitely not adopting "easy and quick" over "detailed" - especially with vehicle kits. Look at the number of parts required to build an Impulsor, for example, even though it's supposed to be just a basic transport. So what they've done with the Drop Pod definitely goes against the grain.

Charax wrote:
Little worried that they've put out a Land Raider article at the same time, are we going to get a "new and improved" Land Raider with missing weapons and sealed doors too?

The Land Raider is in a strange place. The current kit is pretty ancient now. It pre-dates their digital design method, it doesn't fit together particularly well, it doesn't match the aesthetics of the Primaris range of vehicles (and has arguably been rendered obsolete by the Repulsor). Yet it's still iconic, and still seems to have a place in Marine armies - and this article suggests it's here to stay. I think an updated kit would be welcomed. It would only require some tweaking of the details to make it consistent with the Primaris aesthetic. There is no need to make any significant changes to the overall look of it. But rather than being simplified, I would expect something with more considerably more pieces.

So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!

As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.

Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.

They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.

Andykp wrote:
So much rage over a new drop pod?? The old one had doors you could shut, so what, the doors never closed after they landed, they stayed open, said so in the fluff so what was the point of the does closing on the model, other than making rocket noises as you put it on the table!

As for the “fear” that each one only holds 5 marines, don’t be daft you can see space for each marine in the harness clamp things, 2 per door, so 10. Stop panicking it will be ok.

Drop pod models should be cheap and easy to build as they are more terrain than vehicle so this kit is perfect, it lost a storm bolter, so what, the storm bolter wasn’t the defining feature of the model. Losing the doors as has been suggested would have been a bigger change to what has been the definitive feature of the drop pod, it opening up like petals of a flower.

They have made a model that is more usable, easier to build but still serves the exact same purpose as the old when, this is just better and good move by GW. I can easily imagine sales of drop pods haven’t been great for a while now and this kit will sell. I have had my current marine army since primaris arrived and haven’t been interested in buying a drop pod because the kit was a pain, these I will 100% pick up a box and bet I’m not alone in that.

The defining feature of the drop pod was that it provided a rule that didn't necessitate a model. They've always been wrong for the tabletop.

 Snord wrote:

GW are definitely not adopting "easy and quick" over "detailed" - especially with vehicle kits. Look at the number of parts required to build an Impulsor, for example, even though it's supposed to be just a basic transport. So what they've done with the Drop Pod definitely goes against the grain..

It's definitely a direction change... Many of the kits released in the last decade or so have been needlessly fiddly. It felt a lot like they got carried away with what they could do in plastic, spurred on by that weird philosophy that they were a miniature maker rather than a games company... And the end result was a bunch of kits that look great when they're finished, but are a right pain to put together.

If they've remembered that these models are intended to be used in a tabletop game, then that can only be a good thing, in my book.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And whether we like it or not, the same goes for single loadout characters. Anyone being able to buy off the peg and and not miss out on possible wargear combos levels the playing field. If you want to convert up or scratch build? Theres still nothing preventing you doing that. Which is often, erroneously in my opinion, presented in the community as GW discouraging or outright forbidding scratch builds and conversion.

I have to disagree on this one, but only because of the way GW implemented it. Removing options from characters rather than making kits with previously missing options added was, IMO, the wrong way to go. Making characters easy to build was a good idea. Making them boring... Less so.

Likewise, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, with removing the weapon on the drop pod... It's difficult to see a good reason for doing that, as it makes it a really boring model to put on the table... It's just terrain, now.

I cant say that theres like a trend in therms of kit designs to be fair... Some kits are overly convoluted to build others oversimplified, some have options while others do not. It's not even a detail thing.
With that said this seems to be an half designed kit with the removal of key features just for the sake of saving GW money and time.
Also if they were focused on functionality across the board you would not have the silly thin fragile details, not fit for tabletop use like, you see on so many kits.
It boils down if these are aimed as gaming tokens or display pieces. Obviously GW will try to sell you these as "art" so they can justify the price tag.
Boring minis is also relative to each person sensibility, I rather have a plain and with minimal details Primaris than one that is flooded with details, the former is more enjoyable to paint and I can reposition/convert it etc.
I have to say something about GW dissuading people from converting/sculpting... Officially they dont sell tools or Putty anymore and today you see less and less bespoke sculpted projects unlike a decade or two ago. Very few people still hang onto that and most print some bits and call it done. So its not only GW not supporting in the same way, its also the way the hobby is going today.

Note that by 'boring' I was referring to characters not having options, not styling.

Being able to customise character loadouts is one of the things that always appealed to me about 40k. Dumping a bunch of options because they cost to release a model that only comes with a single gun and a single melee weapon is a massive downgrade.

 insaniak wrote:
Note that by 'boring' I was referring to characters not having options, not styling.

Being able to customise character loadouts is one of the things that always appealed to me about 40k. Dumping a bunch of options because they cost to release a model that only comes with a single gun and a single melee weapon is a massive downgrade.

I think Necromunda found, in my opinion, the right balance for that. Regardless of selling the options on the gang box they have that extra box set with options of weapon etc. To some extent they do that in 40k for the Primaris specific chapters.

Lack of doors is pretty awful.

Saying that I am surprised they didn't release two models one open one closed and said you had to have both

This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol

chaos0xomega wrote:
This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol

I'm going to choose the hope that the rules will be based around the main structure of the model which I've seen is apparently close in size, therefore leaving the old model more painful to actually place on the table due to the larger doors (if open) but the old model remains viable.

For most GW models all the rules need is a base size and a rough height similarity

I think we havent seen the last of the old Drop Pod model. GW's just going to slap a new SKU and boxart to it, so then they will have two Drop Pod kits, one for HH and one for 40K. Suits their current obsession of making discreet kits for each franchise.

chaos0xomega wrote:
This does raise a question: whats going to happen to owners of the current drop pod? Based on the article, there will be rules pertaining to how to properly measure rules interactions based on the new kit, presumably to include the new smaller doors. That likely means the current kit is entirely mechanically illegal, assuming the doors are being counted as part of the model. And if they are, anyone who built their pods with doors closed is fully sol

Doors closed is probably the easiest to adapt - just cut a piece of MDF to the footprint of the new drop pod and put the old drop pod on it with some rocks and scenery.

If the current Pod is bigger open than the new one, then that's more of a challenge to adapt - though you could close the doors and use the first option.