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.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't dislike the MK III, beyond the boltgun scope being blocked for no other reason than a severe lack of gun knowledge.

What scope?

The boltgun one on the pic?

You're gonna have to circle it. Not seeing a scope at all. I think I see the targeting system that links to the helmet but no scope on any of the guns in the picture.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't dislike the MK III, beyond the boltgun scope being blocked for no other reason than a severe lack of gun knowledge.

What scope?

The boltgun one on the pic?

Thats not a Scope, its just a part of the bolter that has always been on the Phobos Pattern.

Element games has Jetbikes in stock.

https://elementgames.co.uk/games-workshop/horus-heresy-miniatures/horus-heresy-sky-hunter-squadron

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't dislike the MK III, beyond the boltgun scope being blocked for no other reason than a severe lack of gun knowledge.

What scope?

The boltgun one on the pic?

Thats not a Scope, its just a part of the bolter that has always been on the Phobos Pattern.

that is clearly not the same thing.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't dislike the MK III, beyond the boltgun scope being blocked for no other reason than a severe lack of gun knowledge.

What scope?

The boltgun one on the pic?

There is no scope on those bolters in that image. Scopes on bolters are usually huge and sit on top.

Bolters don’t rely on iron sights. Rather they have cameras which hook up to the power armour, so the bearer can see what his gun sees.

Probably bloody useful for firing from behind cover.

Don't be obstuse i mean this thing:



Even if it were a sensor, it'd be bloody useless.

and it is cleary not the same thing as on the old umbra pattern.

to me this looks like someone thought an reddot sight would look good and than put on the frontsight anyways.

Looks like a redesign of the same rear sight housing that has always been there to me. But even if it is a Red Dot, just shave the front sight post off.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Don't be obstuse i mean this thing:



Even if it were a sensor, it'd be bloody useless.

and it is cleary not the same thing as on the old umbra pattern.

to me this looks like someone thought an reddot sight would look good and than put on the frontsight anyways.

Looks like a rework of the old Phobos with a specific rail section to mount optics.

Yeah, that ain't a scope/sight at all it's just the weird lump on the top of the Phobos Bolter.

Yeah, for no reason at all the Phobos pattern uses an internal toggle-lock design and that lump is just an extension of the dust cover to protect the knee joint when it’s at full retraction. The early production marks allow for that section to be moved independently, for field inspection and cleaning, though this feature was later removed as an unnecessary and expensive complication in manufacturing that was seldom actually useful. I thought everyone knew that?

Not Online!!! wrote:
Don't be obstuse i mean this thing:



Even if it were a sensor, it'd be bloody useless.

and it is cleary not the same thing as on the old umbra pattern.

to me this looks like someone thought an reddot sight would look good and than put on the frontsight anyways.

It should be noted that on all three bolters in the pic that's clipped from that blocky extrusion is below the front portion of the sight making me think it's a mounting block rather than a sight itself. It is certainly a weird shape though.

In a world where bolters supposedly use caseless ammunition but still spit out spent cartridges, laser weapons have muzzles and tanks have flat, wraparound tracks and sponson weapons, it seems pedantic in the extreme to be focusing on whether this sight (or whatever it is) could realistically function...

 Snord wrote:
In a world where bolters supposedly use caseless ammunition but still spit out spent cartridges, laser weapons have muzzles and tanks have flat, wraparound tracks and sponson weapons, it seems pedantic in the extreme to be focusing on whether this sight (or whatever it is) could realistically function...

You must be new here

I think they retconned the caseless thing though? Rule of cool and spitting spent shells is cool and all that.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I think they retconned the caseless thing though? Rule of cool and spitting spent shells is cool and all that.

It wasn't a thing to begin with. Spent bolter casings have been used for marksmen honors at least as far back as the 2nd ed Ultramarines codex. Normal bolter shells canonically have casings. Any instance of caseless ammunition is either rare special issue ammunition or the writer getting things wrong.

 Geifer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I think they retconned the caseless thing though? Rule of cool and spitting spent shells is cool and all that.

It wasn't a thing to begin with. Spent bolter casings have been used for marksmen honors at least as far back as the 2nd ed Ultramarines codex. Normal bolter shells canonically have casings. Any instance of caseless ammunition is either rare special issue ammunition or the writer getting things wrong.

Thank you.

But he, don't let that other people stop smearing me a pedantic Grognard.
I will have you lot know that i am proud of that attribute!

 Geifer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I think they retconned the caseless thing though? Rule of cool and spitting spent shells is cool and all that.

It wasn't a thing to begin with. Spent bolter casings have been used for marksmen honors at least as far back as the 2nd ed Ultramarines codex. Normal bolter shells canonically have casings. Any instance of caseless ammunition is either rare special issue ammunition or the writer getting things wrong.

I mean they retconned it after Rogue Trader. When that artwork of the blond Dark Angel shooting up some, was it orks, was published?

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I think they retconned the caseless thing though? Rule of cool and spitting spent shells is cool and all that.

It wasn't a thing to begin with. Spent bolter casings have been used for marksmen honors at least as far back as the 2nd ed Ultramarines codex. Normal bolter shells canonically have casings. Any instance of caseless ammunition is either rare special issue ammunition or the writer getting things wrong.

I mean they retconned it after Rogue Trader. When that artwork of the blond Dark Angel shooting up some, was it orks, was published?

I couldn't say, but personally I'd leave Rogue Trader out of any discussion on background and canonicity. If your reference is Rogue Trader, that is to say the time before 40k was consolidated into what it has been for the last three decades, your reference is a semi-amorphous mass of lumped together ideas that have not yet been shaped into the recognizable, unified and defined setting that it has been for the rest of its existence. It's kind of pointless to discuss details being retconned if you move past 2nd ed and into Rogue Trader only to find that the foundation those details are based on is entirely different, which is all too often the case. If your measure is Rogue Trader, then yeah, half the setting has been retconned. Who cares about one more detail at that point?

 Geifer wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
I think they retconned the caseless thing though? Rule of cool and spitting spent shells is cool and all that.

It wasn't a thing to begin with. Spent bolter casings have been used for marksmen honors at least as far back as the 2nd ed Ultramarines codex. Normal bolter shells canonically have casings. Any instance of caseless ammunition is either rare special issue ammunition or the writer getting things wrong.

I mean they retconned it after Rogue Trader. When that artwork of the blond Dark Angel shooting up some, was it orks, was published?

I couldn't say, but personally I'd leave Rogue Trader out of any discussion on background and canonicity. If your reference is Rogue Trader, that is to say the time before 40k was consolidated into what it has been for the last three decades, your reference is a semi-amorphous mass of lumped together ideas that have not yet been shaped into the recognizable, unified and defined setting that it has been for the rest of its existence. It's kind of pointless to discuss details being retconned if you move past 2nd ed and into Rogue Trader only to find that the foundation those details are based on is entirely different, which is all too often the case. If your measure is Rogue Trader, then yeah, half the setting has been retconned. Who cares about one more detail at that point?

So when is the demarcation line? It still seems like an amorphous blob of thrown together ideas...

I'd say 3rd edition is where it really starts to solidify into the more coherent 40k, after 2nd edition introduced a lot of the ideas.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I'd say 3rd edition is where it really starts to solidify into the more coherent 40k, after 2nd edition introduced a lot of the ideas.

I think that's a good way of looking at it.

Okay, so I should have put the caseless ammo thing in the past tense. I remember this being a thing (and being discussed on Dakka), but it was clearly a considerable time ago.

ziontrain wrote:
You must be new here

No...

 Geifer wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
I'd say 3rd edition is where it really starts to solidify into the more coherent 40k, after 2nd edition introduced a lot of the ideas.

I think that's a good way of looking at it.

its also when they took a lot of humour out sadly and tried to be more grown up, some of this for the good, some of it for the bad

and even 1st edition sort of had a 1.0 & 1.5 version when the marines went to T4 with a 3+ save and an actual structure over the earlier T3 4+ and unstructured like the rest of the factions

Hate to say it but new mark 3 dosent look as good style wise as current mark 3. Perportionally it's much better but. Current mark 3 is near perfect style wise.

do really like the current Mk III, all thats really needed is an "assault" version of it and special/heavy weapons upgrades. the basic kit is fine

Agreed, the current MKIII kit is very good (unlike the MKIV kit IMHO), the only thing that could be improved upon is the scale.

I'm concerned that a re-do of MKIII would mean that the legs and torso were one piece, and that the in-kit variety would be limited due to cost cutting (like with the newer MKVI kit).

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
Agreed, the current MKIII kit is very good (unlike the MKIV kit IMHO), the only thing that could be improved upon is the scale.

I'm concerned that a re-do of MKIII would mean that the legs and torso were one piece, and that the in-kit variety would be limited due to cost cutting (like with the newer MKVI kit).

I expect that's what's going to happen. Infantry seems to be out of luck in this edition of Horus Heresy.

EPIC has Rapier Batteries with mk 6 crews so I guess we can expect a plastic kit in the future