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.

Now we've finally seen some images of the actual models, what does everyone think? It would be nice to get more discussion going in this forum - it's pretty quiet (until someone asks a rules question!).

My immediate reaction is that they are 'okay' - they look as though they will do the job. I think they look better than the initial images we saw of the designs, although the painting on these models looks as though it was rushed. The poses they've come up with are a bit weird (some of them remind me of the curious poses that used to appear on 1/72 scale plastic soldiers - you'd look at them and wonder what they were doing). But it looks as though there is plenty of scope for assembling them with better poses. I'm glad they're designed to look as though they are standing on solid ground and not perching on terrain. There has been some comment about the apparent lack of weapon choices. The obvious answer is that there must be a weapon upgrade set in the works, although I'm not sure what that would contain. Power weapons and additional pistol weapons? They don't appear to be designed to be used as Breachers (the legs are too dynamic), so possibly any plastic Breachers will be based on the Mk III models. I'm guessing that the inclusion of the jump packs is the reason there are only 10 models in the box.

From what's been shown, they're fine. The distinct lack of tactical rock is both surprising and positive. Truth of the matter is though, such a basic unit should have been a wave 1 release. At absolute worst, wave 2. Having them as a assault/despoiler combi-kit would also have been a sensible thing too, but it seems not, unless of course GW has kept that little nugget well hidden.


With the release of the nu-MkIII, breachers would seem a logical next infantry kit. With the extra vambraces supplied in the kit, it would solve the issue of having a 1-upgrade-fits-all kit with shields/etc. in it that people speculated would be the issue holding back such an upgrade kit. Would work for MkIII, MkVI and probably the others Mks too, however they chose to solve those aesthetic differences.

I really like them, big beakie fan so it's little surprise that I'm really pleased with the end result. Will be picking up quite a few to run in my EC.

I'm a little annoyed that they won't be releasing alongside the melee weapons pack(s), as it means I have to wait longer if I want new power weapons to slot into my squads/build some despoilers to run alongside them after already waiting for well over a year, but as above that's a broader issue with heresy's treatment following its second edition release.

Hopefully they're out before Christmas.

I started off pretty neutral but they've grown on me a bit. I'll definitely be picking some up just for the collection.

The poses and lack of tactical rocks seems good, the potential for various poses by swapping arms around seems ok, my only concern is how much longer it'll take for the minis to hit the shelves.

I couldn't see any indication of a release date. Given that GW seem to have designed them in a hurry (having unaccountably being caught out by the demand for assault troops), maybe they will put them out fairly quickly. There is also supposed to be a Command Squad in the works.

Command Squad and CC upgrades are scheduled for 2024 spring, so they're still some ways off.

I've already given my opinion on the Assault Squad in other threads, to summarize, I'd rate them as 3/5, pros being that the new leg poses can be used to spice up tactical and support squaad models, cons being the odd looking chestplate and the new style Jump Pack. I would have liked the RT style Jump Packs for these, ie the ones the MKV resins have.

Will be fun to see how combining these with the resin breacher bitz will end up looking like. Can't wait for the new kit to hit the shelves!

The sculpts are "okay, I guess".

My opinion of the kit will depend immensely on what you get, how compatible it is with other things, can you build Despoilers or how much it will cost to buy upgrades, etc.

It’s a basic infantry kit being a basic infantry kit.

Some design cues I really like, such as the playing over the cabling. It does make them look plain, but then broadly speaking, we’re not exactly used to plain chest pieces on Marines, Chaos, Loyalist or Primaris.

Jump Packs are a particular favourite of mine design wise. Somewhere between those were used to from modern and Heresy. Importantly, they still look perfectly capable of hoisting a Marine up into the air.

Miles behind ancient MK5 FW sculpts. But I'm already used to GW models being far inferior looking to FW ones, so *shrug*

Can someone link to the reveal pics please?

 Eilif wrote:
Can someone link to the reveal pics please?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/11/18/world-championships-preview-mkvi-assault-marines-rocket-into-the-age-of-darkness/

Here you go

Personally I think they suffer from the same problem as all the other Mk 6, being super bland, but at least we got the old raptor jumppacks recanonized.

I think the blandess can be addressed with proper use of decals and weathering at least

Thanks for the pics.
Not bad but too slick and bland.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think the blandess can be addressed with proper use of decals and weathering at least

Yeah, to me bland means a canvas for my own work. I'm ok with bland as long as it's well composed.

I'll probably be switching out the chainswords and maybe adding some studs to the breastplates.

Arguably, the 'blandness' that some have mentioned is actually consistent with the HH aesthetic, which is more utilitarian than the 40k era. I've seen comments from long-term Heresy players that some of the newer models (such as the plastic Praetors) are too heavily decorated and don't suit that aesthetic. I think it was a conscious design choice to have that large, flat plate over the chest, and I think it works. You can always add some additional insignia there (whether it's a decal or something removed from another model).

Aesthetically? I really like them.

That said, I do agree that the poses are.. strange. Better than the tactical marines (by miles) for close combat oriented forces, but still fairly bizarre IMHO. I also think it's a fething travesty they won't have weapon options until spring, but I also appreciate GW's insistence on giving free business to the third party market. They deserve it more, tbh.

I find the complaints about them being bland fairly.. odd. Part of the point of 30k (imo) is that forces look different. They're professional soldiers who are embroiled in a bitter, desperate, and ultimately fairly short war. There's ideaology on both sides but the armies are, at their core, armies made up of soldiers first rather than religious zealots.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Part of the point of 30k (imo) is that forces look different. They're professional soldiers who are embroiled in a bitter, desperate, and ultimately fairly short war. There's ideaology on both sides but the armies are, at their core, armies made up of soldiers first rather than religious zealots.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Heresy fluff, but my understanding is that the look of Heresy-era equipment mostly pre-dates the Heresy itself. It's nevertheless true that it reflects a period before the pseudo-religious imagery took hold. IMO the more austere look of Heresy-era stuff is part of its appeal. GW slightly messed this up with the Primaris range, which (to my eyes) adopted a similar aesthetic, and further confused things by adopting the Heresy-era approach to unit organisation (with everyone in the unit basically equipped the same way). But they seem to be moving back to a better differentiation as the Primaris models take the place of the so-called firstborn.

Should have come in squads of 20, instead of 10, but nice sculpts, nonetheless.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think the blandess can be addressed with proper use of decals and weathering at least

Agreed with this^^^.

 Snord wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
Part of the point of 30k (imo) is that forces look different. They're professional soldiers who are embroiled in a bitter, desperate, and ultimately fairly short war. There's ideaology on both sides but the armies are, at their core, armies made up of soldiers first rather than religious zealots.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Heresy fluff, but my understanding is that the look of Heresy-era equipment mostly pre-dates the Heresy itself. It's nevertheless true that it reflects a period before the pseudo-religious imagery took hold. IMO the more austere look of Heresy-era stuff is part of its appeal. GW slightly messed this up with the Primaris range, which (to my eyes) adopted a similar aesthetic, and further confused things by adopting the Heresy-era approach to unit organisation (with everyone in the unit basically equipped the same way). But they seem to be moving back to a better differentiation as the Primaris models take the place of the so-called firstborn.

Pretty much this. Power Armour, and the Marines strapped into it, were mass produced in that era. And given the Crusade and Heresy took place in a shockingly small space of time, the personalisation of armour just…didn’t really come up.

Something tells me that both of the Legions that I play (IIIrd & XVIIIth) would personalize the gak outta their armour.

EC would do so in search of perfection.
Salamanders would do so as a byproduct of their craftsmanship.

BA, NL, & WB to an extent would as well.

Others like WE, DA, RG, IW, IF would eschew ornaments and stick to maybe a single totem/fetish on a Sargeant.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Something tells me that both of the Legions that I play (IIIrd & XVIIIth) would personalize the gak outta their armour.

EC would do so in search of perfection.
Salamanders would do so as a byproduct of their craftsmanship.

BA, NL, & WB to an extent would as well.

Others like WE, DA, RG, IW, IF would eschew ornaments and stick to maybe a single totem/fetish on a Sargeant.

See, but even the personalization in the Heresy is significantly different. Most of what you see is based on Legion heraldry rather than religious iconography, and while present it's significantly lesser even in the legions and units which are likely to go about it.

So a 30k WE may have a special gladiator helm, their legion icon on their shoulder & knee pad, kill-counts on their wrist, and spikes on their other shoulder.

A 40k WE is.. Insane. Khorne's icon on their chest. Khorne's icon on their knee. Khorne's icon on their axe. A special helmet which has khorne's icon. Khorne's icon on their belt buckle, which as a string of hanging skulls. This isn't an exageration, this is literally the Khorne Berzerker kit. And it doesn't touch on stuff like how busy the armor looks with all the brass edging on all of its armor, mixed shoulder pads, confusion of cables, so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, a HH Ultramine we also look exactly the same as the WE; legion icon in 1 or two places, maybe a special helmet (which is pretty close to the standard one), and a special shoulderpad if they're a sergeant.

And the 40k UM is the Khorne marine, but with skulls instead of Khornate icons and enough purity seals to be highly upsetting to anyone who was affected by the TP shortages of corona virus.

Worth noting is that this is also if people go out of the way to legion-up their 30k marines. A majority of marines in most legions will be basically completely bare except for maybe transfers. Maybe they'll all have special heads. Meanwhile, the 40k versions have all the excess flash and religious iconography molded onto the models themselves in the default kit.

I think in 30k most customization is at a high organizational level, ie. entire companies or chapters or whatever issued with particular variants because they get them en masse from allied Forgeworlds and each Forgeworld has its quirks. So you see whole armies wearing identical copies of old styled Mk3 and whole armies wearing identical copies of new styled Mk3, World Eaters having all Sarum pattern helmets and so on.

In 40k customization is at a personal level, dudes be wearing suits cobbled together from 10.000 years of salvage plus all the history of the previous and current occupant they wish to honour.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
In 40k customization is at a personal level, dudes be wearing suits cobbled together from 10.000 years of salvage plus all the history of the previous and current occupant they wish to honour.

That's less of a thing in 40k now that everyone is adopting Primaris armour.

There is a lot of individual/unit level customisation in 30k as well - partly out of necessity, as the Heresy causes shortages and Marines resort to scavenging, and partly out of choice.

The new Assault Beakies are on pre-order next weekend.

I dislike most of the new (infantry) GW sculpts.. i think it's because they make them digitally rather than hand-sculpted nowadays.
Most of them look soulless and sterile compared to the old stuff.
It's hard to explain but CAD miniatures usually break my immersion when looking at them.

Luke1993 wrote:
I dislike most of the new (infantry) GW sculpts.. i think it's because they make them digitally rather than hand-sculpted nowadays.
Most of them look soulless and sterile compared to the old stuff.
It's hard to explain but CAD miniatures usually break my immersion when looking at them.

I think it's the movement. Few modern minis look like they're actually moving, most look like they're holding a moving pose to have a photo taken for their cosplay instagram account.

Luke1993 wrote:
I dislike most of the new (infantry) GW sculpts.. i think it's because they make them digitally rather than hand-sculpted nowadays.
Most of them look soulless and sterile compared to the old stuff.
It's hard to explain but CAD miniatures usually break my immersion when looking at them.

I know what you mean, although I'm not sure why it is - maybe it's the way they're posed, as Blackfang suggests. However, I have found that a bit of customising puts life back into the models.

Snord wrote:Arguably, the 'blandness' that some have mentioned is actually consistent with the HH aesthetic, which is more utilitarian than the 40k era. I've seen comments from long-term Heresy players that some of the newer models (such as the plastic Praetors) are too heavily decorated and don't suit that aesthetic. I think it was a conscious design choice to have that large, flat plate over the chest, and I think it works. You can always add some additional insignia there (whether it's a decal or something removed from another model).

honestly having an extra plate over the chest as part of the jetpack mounting makes more sense to me than it just being some straps, like on the older 40k assault squad kit. especially for melee centric troops, where a bit of extra armor makes sense. though i can also see how it might have evolved into the 40K version over time (especially if the packs themselves lost some lifting power in the shift to the Mk.VII Pattern (which seems to be the most common form by M41), which would require them to strip down their loadout some.

mithril2098 wrote:

Snord wrote:Arguably, the 'blandness' that some have mentioned is actually consistent with the HH aesthetic, which is more utilitarian than the 40k era. I've seen comments from long-term Heresy players that some of the newer models (such as the plastic Praetors) are too heavily decorated and don't suit that aesthetic. I think it was a conscious design choice to have that large, flat plate over the chest, and I think it works. You can always add some additional insignia there (whether it's a decal or something removed from another model).

honestly having an extra plate over the chest as part of the jetpack mounting makes more sense to me than it just being some straps, like on the older 40k assault squad kit. especially for melee centric troops, where a bit of extra armor makes sense. though i can also see how it might have evolved into the 40K version over time (especially if the packs themselves lost some lifting power in the shift to the Mk.VII Pattern (which seems to be the most common form by M41), which would require them to strip down their loadout some.

To me, the preference for the M41 era look is the X-shape of the jetpack harness, a contrast to the Y-shaped harness of tacticals. Pragmatism didnt really play into it back in the day, and "the rule of cool" takes care of the rest

 tauist wrote:
To me, the preference for the M41 era look is the X-shape of the jetpack harness, a contrast to the Y-shaped harness of tacticals. Pragmatism didnt really play into it back in the day, and "the rule of cool" takes care of the rest

That is pretty cool, yea.