Possible Saturnine box?

[roryokane]

Found these on a YouTube post. Will post the link when I find it again. Thought they might warrant further study.

 

 

[Magos Takatus]

That Dreadnought is an absolute chonker. While silly, I don't think the Saturnine Terminators look as ridiculous as I was expecting.

[Doobles57]

Well if it's a fake then it feels like a good fake......

 

MKII is genuinely exciting for me - it's always been my favourite mark for heresy. I'm not as convinced by the other parts of the box though yet.

 

Looks like there's a book in there, but I can't make out if it looks like a full-on rulebook (so def 3rd ed) or a smaller supplement (2.5 ed maybe).

[ZeroWolf]

3 minutes ago, Doobles57 said:

Well if it's a fake then it feels like a good fake......

 

MKII is genuinely exciting for me - it's always been my favourite mark for heresy. I'm not as convinced by the other parts of the box though yet.

 

Looks like there's a book in there, but I can't make out if it looks like a full-on rulebook (so def 3rd ed) or a smaller supplement (2.5 ed maybe).

It's been discussed in the horus heasay thread and someone said they think they made out the words 3rd edition where it mentions the rule book. I still don't think it's a full on change either way, more a clean up edition than a reboot.

[Indy Techwisp]

3 minutes ago, Doobles57 said:

Well if it's a fake then it feels like a good fake......

 

MKII is genuinely exciting for me - it's always been my favourite mark for heresy. I'm not as convinced by the other parts of the box though yet.

 

Looks like there's a book in there, but I can't make out if it looks like a full-on rulebook (so def 3rd ed) or a smaller supplement (2.5 ed maybe).

 

This seems real, considering GW rapidly entered panic mode as soon as it was spotted online.
This is being discussed already in this thread:

 

[roryokane]

17 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

This seems real, considering GW rapidly entered panic mode as soon as it was spotted online.
This is being discussed already in this thread:

 

Ah damn it, didn’t see it. Hopefully the mods can merge my post into the other one.

[redmapa]

They look kind of wonky, I think it's the short legs compared to the torso, but I don't dislike them. 

[Captain Idaho]

Saturnine Dreadnought and Terminators... WANT.

 

They look cool.

Edited 23 hours ago by Captain Idaho
Joke never landed

[Deschenus Maximus]

The dread looks ok but the Termies look really goofy to me. Can’t really make out what the Tacticals look like.

Edited 20 hours ago by Deschenus Maximus

[Harleqvin]

Don’t know where it’s from but here is another image.

I’m excited.

[siegfriedfr]

I wonder if GW remembered that saturnine was never officially linked to those mk1 terminators from first ed, or if they consciously decided to retcon this.

 

As for the saturnine dread, it is a missed opportunity to also retcon the furibundus into the lore.

Edited 22 hours ago by siegfriedfr

[TheVoidDragon]

While they look like cool miniatures, it is a little annoying how this is a case of memelore being made canon yet again, after Incorrect lore having repeated over and over and over again so much because no one bothers to look into things and just parrots whatever they heard.

 

Those original style terminators were never actually "Saturnine". The communtiy saw the name "saturnine" in a book, and decided that the original Terminator miniatures must have been that, even though it was not once said anywhere official that was what i was, and never even described what they looked like., and with many wrongly claiming that artwork showing what was outright said to be a prototype suit made by Vulkan was "Saturnine".

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Bryan Blaire]

25 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

… it is a little annoying how this is a case of memelore being made canon yet again …

 

Those original style terminators were never actually "Saturnine”.

They may not have been stated that way by GW before, but assuming this is real, they “were never actually” has become “they were always.” Does it matter whether GW internally did always refer to the original Terminators as “Saturnine” or “round squatties” of “the Old Ones” or something else, when so much of the Rogue Trader and other early 40K material has been incorporated into the Heresy material, so now have incorporated these as the Saturnine pattern?

 

Is it annoying because you didn’t want this version of the Terminator armor to be the Saturnine pattern just to have others be wrong and them not to incorporate an old style into the game, or is it annoying because it’s a missed opportunity for GW to have made a completely new pattern of Terminator armor that no one has ever seen before and yet state “But it was always there”? Does it really even matter and shouldn’t be annoying at all?

 

This almost seems more of a “closing the loop” choice than an annoying incorporation, but I’m not sure it was that great of an execution on GW’s part.

Edited 20 hours ago by Bryan Blaire

[TheVoidDragon]

18 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

They may not have been stated that way by GW before, but assuming this is real, they “were never actually” has become “they were always.” Does it matter whether GW internally did always refer to the original Terminators as “Saturnine” or “round squatties” of “the Old Ones” or something else, when so much of the Rogue Trader and other early 40K material has been incorporated into the Heresy material, so now have incorporated these as the Saturnine pattern?

 

Is it annoying because you didn’t want this version of the Terminator armor to be the Saturnine pattern just to have others be wrong and them not to incorporate an old style into the game, or is it annoying because it’s a missed opportunity for GW to have made a completely new pattern of Terminator armor that no one has ever seen before and yet state “But it was always there”? Does it really even matter and shouldn’t be annoying at all?

 

This almost seems more of a “closing the loop” choice than an annoying incorporation, but I’m not sure it was that great of an execution on GW’s part.

 

Retcons are fine, it's not that part itself that there's an issue with.

It's that this only happened because misinformation was spread so much and taken as fact even when it wasn't. It's annoying because it's the result of incorrect lore having been claimed as a fact over and over even when it wasn't, and now it's become true because of that.

Edited 20 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[thesarge44]

That Saturnine Preator is almost comically large next to the MK 2 preator/marines. He's actually taller than the back banner even. Looks like a decent set though, the dread looks good only thing iffy on is the weapon platform.

[Evil Eye]

Those Terminators look pretty great, about as perfect as an official update of the old RT Termies is ever gonna be. Just needs antennae!

 

The Dreadnought looks fantastic, I sincerely look forward to getting one and Chaosing it up (to run with VDR probably). The rest is hard to make out, but it looks good.

[Bryan Blaire]

1 hour ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Retcons are fine, it's not that part itself that there's an issue with.

It's that this only happened because misinformation was spread so much and taken as fact even when it wasn't. It's annoying because it's the result of incorrect lore having been claimed as a fact over and over even when it wasn't, and now it's become true because of that.

Do you have actual proof of that which shows that GW never intended the original Terminator suits to be named “Saturnine” pattern or is that your inference because they haven’t said it outright until now?

 

If there is lore somewhere that shows that, then yes, you have a point - you probably should quote it as support of your claims. If you don’t, then your argument that it’s “incorrect lore” is off the mark and you are likely spreading misinformation yourself.

Edited 19 hours ago by Bryan Blaire

[LSM]

24 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

Do you have actual proof of that which shows that GW never intended the original Terminator suits to be named “Saturnine” pattern or is that your inference because they haven’t said it outright until now?

 

If there is lore somewhere that shows that, then yes, you have a point - you probably should quote it as support of your claims. If you don’t, then your argument that it’s “incorrect lore” is off the mark and you are likely spreading misinformation yourself.

 

The only things that (as far as I am aware) have been said about Saturnine Pattern TDA:

• It went into production mid-HH. (Per core rulebook timeline.)
• It was functionally the same as Indomitus and Tartaros (per Betrayal) and any differences are largely aesthetic (per WarCom article).
• It is incredibly rare in the 41st Millennium. (Per WarCom article.)

 

//

 

(My old pet theory was that whomever coined the term 'Saturnine Pattern' was making a nod to the Grey Knights, perhaps without realising that their TDA was already referred to as Aegis Pattern.)

 

Edited 18 hours ago by LSM

[Cenobite Terminator]

I noticed the templates don’t have seemed to changed.

[TheVoidDragon]

1 hour ago, Bryan Blaire said:

Do you have actual proof of that which shows that GW never intended the original Terminator suits to be named “Saturnine” pattern or is that your inference because they haven’t said it outright until now?

 

If there is lore somewhere that shows that, then yes, you have a point - you probably should quote it as support of your claims. If you don’t, then your argument that it’s “incorrect lore” is off the mark and you are likely spreading misinformation yourself.

 

That's quite a strange thing to say. What you're doing there is basically saying "That nowhere said it was Saturnine, means it was Saturnine",  that's not how it works.. You don't require proof of something not happening, it's the other way around. Trying to claim that unless something is explicitly stated to be not be something that shows it actually is that even when there's no evidence is pretty absurd. We also don't have proof telling us outright that the 2 missing Primarchs weren't actually a golden sparkling unicorn and a Yeti. That that hasn't been said they're not doesn't mean they actually are.

 

That we had no official depiction or even description of what "Saturnine pattern" Terminator armour looked like isn't something subjective. We did not have anything official describing that style as Saturnine, yet the community repeated that style as being Saturnine as if it were a fact regardless. It was literally something incorrectly being stated over and over; not "This would be cool if it was Saturnine" just as a theory, but rather "This IS canonically saturnine" when not once had that been canonically stated.

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[siegfriedfr]

Where is the Saturnine and MKI being the same thing mentioned anyway, The Wiki?

 

Lexicanum sourced it the right way.

 

Anyway, once the book is out, another case of GW not being able to handle its own lore and making fanfiction canon by not trying.

[TheVoidDragon]

12 minutes ago, siegfriedfr said:

Where is the Saturnine and MKI being the same thing mentioned anyway, The Wiki?

 

Lexicanum sourced it the right way.

 

Anyway, once the book is out, another case of GW not being able to handle its own lore and making fanfiction canon by not trying.

 

What do you mean by that?

I don't remember Saturnine and MKI being stated to be the same. Saturnine was meant to be basically the latest version of Terminator armour.

[Bryan Blaire]

2 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

That's quite a strange thing to say. What you're doing there is basically saying "That nowhere said it was Saturnine, means it was Saturnine",  that's not how it works.. You don't require proof of something not happening, it's the other way around. Trying to claim that unless something is explicitly stated to be not be something that shows it actually is that even when there's no evidence is pretty absurd. We also don't have proof telling us outright that the 2 missing Primarchs weren't actually a golden sparkling unicorn and a Yeti. That that hasn't been said they're not doesn't mean they actually are.

 

That we had no official depiction or even description of what "Saturnine pattern" Terminator armour looked like isn't something subjective. We did not have anything official describing that style as Saturnine, yet the community repeated that style as being Saturnine as if it were a fact regardless. It was literally something incorrectly being stated over and over; not "This would be cool if it was Saturnine" just as a theory, but rather "This IS canonically saturnine" when not once had that been canonically stated.

 

 

Yes, the community repeated it and GW has also canonized it.

 

GW may have also internally considered it Saturnine previous to this, or they may not have. Unless there is lore written or statements from GW specifying one way or the other, it’s all speculation what the timing or reasoning of anything was by anyone. I personally have a hard time getting frustrated, angry, or negative about that, or understanding why others would. I do think this was a missed opportunity by GW to give the community “something better.”

 

If you don’t know for sure that they named the armor Saturnine solely because of the Internet calling it that, then your assertion that misinformation made it so is unsupported, because you are asserting it without proof. You do have an obligation to prove affirmatively that your statement is true - you have not done so yet.

Edited 16 hours ago by Bryan Blaire

[Karhedron]

I don't see the problem. It is not like GW have actually changed anything that had previously been established. They have taken an update of a very old model and taken a name which existed in lore for some time and said that the name refers to the model. It is not contradicting any older lore so it seems a very strange thing to get salty about.

[Crimson Longinus]

28 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I don't see the problem. It is not like GW have actually changed anything that had previously been established. They have taken an update of a very old model and taken a name which existed in lore for some time and said that the name refers to the model. It is not contradicting any older lore so it seems a very strange thing to get salty about.

 

Right. There was a terminator armour design without a name and a name for armour without established design. Fans speculated that these might be the same thing, and now GW has canonised it. I don't see an issue.  :shrug: