Horus Heresy Plastic Fellblade Super-Heavy Tank

[Xenith]

On 7/13/2025 at 6:30 PM, beefeb said:

gw quality control doesnt really care a jot about the customers and will push substandard design purely to rush out a product 

 

It's probably better to look at everything they put out and look at the issues there rather than tar and feather a whole department over this one thing. The fact that this is pretty much the only big boo boo in the heresy line gives a better indication as to their quality control. How many thousands of components across hundreds models have they released without issue? 1% failure on QAQC on components is actually pretty damn good 

[Wibbling]

To suggest this is some sort of quality control issue is daft. This design is intentional. That you're not keen on it isn't (I don't mean to be rude) relevant. This is the design language for the heavy bolter. They won't change it for this tank. 

 

I don't know why there's such a kerfuffle over this. It's not real. If folk are such gun nuts that it puts them off why not be bothered about the giant cannon in the main body that would fling the tank - even if it weighed hundreds of tons - around each time it were fired? Then there's the main turret - where extrapolating from a modern MBT- you'd have room for about 8 shells given space constraints.

 

 

[Joe]

This kind of error would be more egregious on a scale model kit attempting to go 1:1 with real world vehicles, soldiers and such - not on a fictional model in a setting where there's regularly outright daft or cosmically fantastical designs that wouldn't work in the slightest.

 

It does still look odd, however.

[skylerboodie]

I'd be more annoyed if it was the only sponsor option and so was going to be part of the miniature when I buy and build it, but anyone who dislikes the look of the heavy bolters (me included) can just use other sponson weapons and never have to ruin their own mini 

[Evil Eye]

14 hours ago, Wibbling said:

If folk are such gun nuts that it puts them off

It's not a gun nut or even suspension (heh) of disbelief thing, it's just that it's very, very lazily modelled. The magazines are clipping straight through the guns in a way that reminds me of some of the early mods for Dawn of War where models would be kitbashed from existing in-game assets, with variable results. I'm glad it's just the heavy bolters, with the lascannons being fine, but still.

[twopounder]

On 7/19/2025 at 2:28 PM, Wibbling said:

To suggest this is some sort of quality control issue is daft. This design is intentional. That you're not keen on it isn't (I don't mean to be rude) relevant. This is the design language for the heavy bolter. They won't change it for this tank. 

 

I don't know why there's such a kerfuffle over this. It's not real. If folk are such gun nuts that it puts them off why not be bothered about the giant cannon in the main body that would fling the tank - even if it weighed hundreds of tons - around each time it were fired? Then there's the main turret - where extrapolating from a modern MBT- you'd have room for about 8 shells given space constraints.

 

 

My assessment comes from experience 3d modelling for printing, and manufacturing with laser cutting and PVC extrusion, and an elp company with hundreds of mills. These all involved dedicated QC departments.

 

What backs up your assessment that my opinion is daft?

[Vassakov]

1 hour ago, twopounder said:

My assessment comes from experience 3d modelling for printing, and manufacturing with laser cutting and PVC extrusion, and an elp company with hundreds of mills. These all involved dedicated QC departments.

 

What backs up your assessment that my opinion is daft?

 

Because what we're arguing about isn't the quality of the actual product so much as the design. You might (reasonably) argue that you dislike the design or think it lazy, shoddy or aesthetically poor but that is, at least in my mind, different from a QC issue which is more about the quality of the product that ends up in customers hands - are the parts miscast or damaged, do they actually form the product as advertised, is it liable to fall apart or otherwise sustain damage in the normal course of proceedings etc.

 

Personally my view is the HB design is very daft, but I would have Laser Destroyers anyway so it's much of a muchness there. 

[sarabando]

finding out that spartans can take the (awful made) quad heavy bolters has me more excited for the kit than anything else. 

[twopounder]

23 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

 

Because what we're arguing about isn't the quality of the actual product so much as the design. You might (reasonably) argue that you dislike the design or think it lazy, shoddy or aesthetically poor but that is, at least in my mind, different from a QC issue which is more about the quality of the product that ends up in customers hands - are the parts miscast or damaged, do they actually form the product as advertised, is it liable to fall apart or otherwise sustain damage in the normal course of proceedings etc.

 

Personally my view is the HB design is very daft, but I would have Laser Destroyers anyway so it's much of a muchness there. 

There is QC in the design process, not just production. And yes, they let things go intentionally to save time and money on the design. It's not just the quality of finished product. When you have guns that are melded into each other, that's an intentional design choice. 

 

I've seen fallout from a product that was 100% on spec for manufacturing, but turned out to be highly toxic because QA allowed formaldehyde in the mixture and it off gassed. Just because QC in production did their job, doesn't mean QC in design did theirs.

[Robbienw]

Its not a QC issue, its a design issue.

[Vassakov]

23 minutes ago, twopounder said:

There is QC in the design process, not just production. And yes, they let things go intentionally to save time and money on the design. It's not just the quality of finished product. When you have guns that are melded into each other, that's an intentional design choice. 

 

 

Emphasis mine. We have no specific evidence as to why this has been designed this way - it may be to make the sprues fit, it might be a copy-paste error in CAD, it might be that a team looked at this and decided that was what they wanted it to look like because of the design language used elsewhere in the range. 

 

There is no suggestion that the design chosen has any impact beyond aesthetics or styling. It doesn't fundamentally change the physical quality of the product or make some kind of failure state more likely, in the way that say designing a front bumper of a car badly will lead to a defective product.

 

This is a little like arguing that there's been a QC failing within a band because they're new album is stylistically different or is a change in genre from their previous works. No, they meant to do that and the product they've released is to all intents and purposes a working product. It's just not to everyone's tastes.

[phandaal]

29 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

Emphasis mine. We have no specific evidence as to why this has been designed this way - it may be to make the sprues fit, it might be a copy-paste error in CAD, it might be that a team looked at this and decided that was what they wanted it to look like because of the design language used elsewhere in the range. 

 

Could be that the guns were just copy/pasted one on top of the other and then not checked. That would be a QC problem because the design comes out with the bottom guns phasing through the ammunition feeds for the top guns.

 

The alternative is that it did pass QC because it was deliberately chosen to be that way. That opens a different can of worms as to why it would be deliberate.

 

All just speculation, but speculating on how a design like that got all the way to production is reasonable.