New Warhammer 40,000 Edition announced!

[MoriyaSchism]

I hated the colour palettes for the Chapters involved in the conflict. They look terrible when compared to the Forgeworld and Horus Heresy ones. They look like reposed CAD models with a bad texture on top, really made the whole book seem cheap. For me that was the worst part of this book. 

[Laurence]

23 hours ago, Antarius said:

They kinda-sorta have to be since they´re ETB minis and need to be assemblable (not a real word, I guess) without glue.

 

So were the Indomitus characters, and yet I assembled my marine characters from that without their requisite rocks, which were seperate pieces.  How has GW gone backward in this regard in just six years?

[SvenIronhand]

4 hours ago, MoriyaSchism said:

I hated the colour palettes for the Chapters involved in the conflict. They look terrible when compared to the Forgeworld and Horus Heresy ones. They look like reposed CAD models with a bad texture on top, really made the whole book seem cheap. For me that was the worst part of this book. 

I rated this disagree, because those are pretty standard Codex color examples.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Laurence said:

So were the Indomitus characters, and yet I assembled my marine characters from that without their requisite rocks, which were seperate pieces.  How has GW gone backward in this regard in just six years?

 

Because it is not really backwards, just different. You only perceive it as backwards because you want to build the model differently from how GW intend. From GW's POV, modelling the feet on the rock is not really any different from modelling locator pins or whatever else you use to align the model with the base and/or tactical rock.

[Evil Eye]

9 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Because it is not really backwards, just different. You only perceive it as backwards because you want to build the model differently from how GW intend. From GW's POV, modelling the feet on the rock is not really any different from modelling locator pins or whatever else you use to align the model with the base and/or tactical rock.

Ehhhhh I dunno, it's different but it's different for the worse. It gives less options to the consumer (or makes more work for them than necessary at least) and doesn't give any real benefit to the finished model.

[MoriyaSchism]

40 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

I rated this disagree, because those are pretty standard Codex color examples.

No, they aren't. They are worse than what came before. Did you forget the last three editions of any Space Marine Codex? There is also zero deviation in terms of style from what's available in the box, they are 1 for 1 to the models. Older books had unique details for chapters, I remember the lightning bolt replacing the skull on the Imperialis for the White Scars and the raven skull on the Raven Guard's Imperialis. There aren't any colour examples for any of the other forces in this conflict or the enemy. It's really low effort. This is supposed to be the lore book made specifically for the box and not something like the pamphlet that came with Dark Imperium. It's odd that parts of it are inconsistent like that. 

[Valkyrion]

I'm with @MoriyaSchism on this, they are worlds apart in terms of quality.  The Badab war books are 15 years ago and they were great, the HH books are 5-15 years ago and they are great. That weird book thing did it wrong, IMO. 

[Nephaston]

8 minutes ago, MoriyaSchism said:

No, they aren't. They are worse than what came before. Did you forget the last three editions of any Space Marine Codex? There is also zero deviation in terms of style from what's available in the box, they are 1 for 1 to the models. Older books had unique details for chapters, I remember the lightning bolt replacing the skull on the Imperialis for the White Scars and the raven skull on the Raven Guard's Imperialis. There aren't any colour examples for any of the other forces in this conflict or the enemy. It's really low effort. This is supposed to be the lore book made specifically for the box and not something like the pamphlet that came with Dark Imperium. It's odd that parts of it are inconsistent like that. 

 

If the color examples were to deviate from the models like that it would spawn endless threads on social media why the book examples don't look like the box. People already hardly understood that these are chapter agnostic despite being painted as BA.

[SvenIronhand]

15 minutes ago, MoriyaSchism said:

Did you forget the last three editions of any Space Marine Codex?

Yes, that's why I said they were closer to the Codexes.

[MoriyaSchism]

1 hour ago, Nephaston said:

 

If the color examples were to deviate from the models like that it would spawn endless threads on social media why the book examples don't look like the box. People already hardly understood that these are chapter agnostic despite being painted as BA.

Why should a Marines Malevolent colour palette in a campaign book look exactly like the model in the box? Because someone on social media would complain? The colour palette or art should be there to give you a nudge to go raid your bits box, pick up some putty and some tools. It all seems so limited. 

 

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

Yes, that's why I said they were closer to the Codexes.

The Codex had better art. 

[SvenIronhand]

2 minutes ago, MoriyaSchism said:

The Codex had better art. 

Run that by me again.

[MoriyaSchism]

51 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Run that by me again.

Yes, that's actually better. Better proportioned too. Something about the new images doesn't seem right. They seem like a slightly squished version of the actual miniatures. I don't know what to tell you. I opened the book and I noticed right away how strange the Blood Angel looked.

Edited June 24 by MoriyaSchism

[Nephaston]

34 minutes ago, MoriyaSchism said:

Why should a Marines Malevolent colour palette in a campaign book look exactly like the model in the box? Because someone on social media would complain? The colour palette or art should be there to give you a nudge to go raid your bits box, pick up some putty and some tools. It all seems so limited. 

 

Knowing the average internet user, If GW were to show "examples" that were not on-model you'd have to factor in constant questions from people how to replicate these examples or where to buy them at best, a fresh influx of 3d print offerings maybe siphoning people away at least, and a constant deluge of spam on social media and e-mail accounts as well as the potential for harassment for employees (maybe even death threats if the sender is feeling spicy)

While GW is no doubt cheaping out as much as possible and doing the absolute minimum in regards to 40k where possible, there is without a doubt a subset of the customer base that is completely deranged.

[Rowland]

.

Edited June 24 by Rowland
Not relevant

[MoriyaSchism]

2 minutes ago, Nephaston said:

Knowing the average internet user, If GW were to show "examples" that were not on-model you'd have to factor in constant questions from people how to replicate these examples or where to buy them at best, a fresh influx of 3d print offerings maybe siphoning people away at least, and a constant deluge of spam on social media and e-mail accounts as well as the potential for harassment for employees (maybe even death threats if the sender is feeling spicy)

While GW is no doubt cheaping out as much as possible and doing the absolute minimum in regards to 40k where possible, there is without a doubt a subset of the customer base that is completely deranged.

I don't care about excuses or reasons why the product we pay for only seems to be getting worse. Perhaps they could even show off their own conversions in these books or publications. Seems like that sort of thing happens only once in a blue moon these days. Usually on some obscure social media channel like GW's instagram page or the pages of a Codex for an army with hardly any modern miniature support like the Grey Knights. It's not hard to do. The death threat and deranged fan claim is laughable, just another excuse you're making on behalf of a faceless corporation.  

[Jukkiz]

is that Judisicar, librarian, apothecary unit? 

Very weird conversion with parts used. 

[SvenIronhand]

30 minutes ago, MoriyaSchism said:

I don't care about excuses or reasons why the product we pay for only seems to be getting worse. Perhaps they could even show off their own conversions in these books or publications. Seems like that sort of thing happens only once in a blue moon these days. Usually on some obscure social media channel like GW's instagram page or the pages of a Codex for an army with hardly any modern miniature support like the Grey Knights. It's not hard to do. The death threat and deranged fan claim is laughable, just another excuse you're making on behalf of a faceless corporation.  

The second example you posted is from the 10th SM codex, hardly a range with no model support.

[No Foes Remain]

1 hour ago, MoriyaSchism said:

Yes, that's actually better. Better proportioned too. Something about the new images doesn't seem right. They seem like a slightly squished version of the actual miniatures. I don't know what to tell you. I opened the book and I noticed right away how strange the Blood Angel looked.

Don't know about you, but it felt like they've taken a Joytoy render and just repainted it. Even compared to the HH art which uses the model renders it looks very off.

[Nephaston]

23 minutes ago, Jukkiz said:

is that Judisicar, librarian, apothecary unit? 

Very weird conversion with parts used. 

This is a "Druid" from the Emperors Spears, a chapter that basically combines techmarines, apothecaries, librarians, and chaplains into one role.

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I think we are veering quite a bit off topic - please constrain your responses to be about the new edition, not GW conversions or other non-edition change related GW choices.

 

Dr. R.

[Grand Master Laertes]

12 hours ago, MoriyaSchism said:

Perhaps they could even show off their own conversions in these books or publications.

 

They do. In White Dwarf there are many of them, and sometimes there are even conversion or scratchbuilding guides/suggestions (even if maybe not as often and not as peculiar as in the legendary past we all seem to remember). Look, the battle report in the current issue only has converted and scratchbuilt terrains (whose creation was discussed in an article a few issues ago).

[gaurdian31]

So question about the rulebook they are selling, is it just a printed copy of the rules that are on the website for download? Are all the rules in it or do they require the app to reference some rules like the one available for download? I ask as the one for download has all those green side bars that indicate that rules are in the app not in the rules downloaded from the website.

Edited June 25 by gaurdian31
For better clarity and grammar.

[Craig]

I don't see anyone talking about this but in the q&a video yesterday they revealed some interesting stuff. The codexes are going to be about 1/3 less expensive than the current ones. If the current ones are £38 that would make the new ones about £25.

[Laurence]

1 hour ago, Craig said:

I don't see anyone talking about this but in the q&a video yesterday they revealed some interesting stuff. The codexes are going to be about 1/3 less expensive than the current ones. If the current ones are £38 that would make the new ones about £25.

Which is fantastic news.  No way a vital rules supplement - especially one so susceptible to errata - should have so high a price tag.

[Felix Antipodes]

1 hour ago, Craig said:

I don't see anyone talking about this but in the q&a video yesterday they revealed some interesting stuff. The codexes are going to be about 1/3 less expensive than the current ones. If the current ones are £38 that would make the new ones about £25.

While I appreciate any price drop, what have they reduced (quality-wise) to allow for it?  We know it won’t be from a drop in their profit margin…