PDA

View Full Version : Dual kits, stretching the concept too far?



Makaber
05-03-2012, 16:01
I like big models. Also, I greatly admire Games Workshop when they manage to create two distinctly different models combined with the same kit.

However, in most (if not all) cases, there's an obvious "main" option, with a nifty alternate version. In the most successful cases, this isn't that noticeable (Tomb King Sphinxes, Vampire Counts Throne/Engine). Unfortunately, it often makes for a poor alternate model (Doomsday Ark), and in the worst cases, so many compromises has to be made, neither option comes out fully successful (Skaven Cannon/Catapult, Ghorgon/Cygor).

However, I feel the dual kit concept has reached a new nadir with the Tervigon/Tyrannofex. The Tervigon itself is pretty sweet, and I thought the Tyrannofex was allright as well, until I read the latest WD at work today (:p). The Tyrannofex has two defining characteristics: It uses all six limbs for support, and its gun is fused with its torso. And the model caputures exactly none, instead looking like a ham-fisted Tervigon holding a gun. Also, as a side note, for something supposed to be so massive, the huge negative space under its body, where the Tervigon eggsacs go, does it no favours. And the middle legs looks weird.

I'm just thinking maybe they're pushing the dual kit thing too far. At least most times they compromise a little, but here it's like they disregarded the concept of the Codex entry to cut corners. Games Workshop has always claimed to make games to support its models, rather than the other way around, but this makes me wonder. And it's clearly a step in the wrong direction.

loveless
05-03-2012, 16:14
Wait...what's wrong with the Doomsday Ark? If anything, I'd say the Ghost Ark is more ridiculous, but both look decent enough for the "modern" Necron style.

The Tyrannofex doesn't really match the original concept, so it might suffer a bit (still looks cool, IMO).

The Skaven Cannon/Catapult is probably the worst offender - two very different warmachines combined into one in an effort to keep costs down. It's very...meh.

I dunno...overall, I'm pretty pleased with the duals.

Radium
05-03-2012, 16:33
Also, as a side note, for something supposed to be so massive, the huge negative space under its body, where the Tervigon eggsacs go, does it no favours. And the middle legs looks weird.

I actually thought that was a nice 'missing link' between the Carnifex and the Hierophant Biotitan.

But in general I agree with you, dual kits are not the way to go IMHO. They usually end up looking like the same thing, while meaning to represent vastly different units.

ashc
05-03-2012, 16:57
I think they are fine considering the reason for their existence.

Geep
05-03-2012, 17:23
Some dual kits are bad (Skaven Warpcannon/ Catapult again being nominated as bad), but I think most work.

I consider the Tervigon/ Tyrannofex to be a good dual kit.
The Tervigon does look quite similar to the concept art, the Tyrannofex looks like a mini-heirophant. The tyrannnofex doesn't really suit the description, but neither does the concept art- the concept art has a beast supported on 4 limbs.
The concept art for both the Tervigon and Tyrannofex is obviously similar- it really is no suprise to me that they share a kit.

jack da greenskin
05-03-2012, 17:48
I agree with the OP, but I think there are worse examples. Crypt horrors/vargheists made me go "wtf", but having seen only the vargeists, which I very much liked, I can't comment on whether its a bad use of the dual kit-ness.

Don't get the hate on the WLC/catapault? I think the WLC looks nice on its own, what I consider to be the primary of the kit, sure, its different to the old one, but its still kinda cool (not keen on the funny warpstone chunk), and by turning the A frame around making it look more catapaulty, with the bonus of being able to turn around to get a different looking WLC, which I think is cool and skavenny.

Ogre thundertusk is another example - I dont like either of the monsters, but they're very different.

I think a better solution is like the stegadon kit. Makes 3 different units, but all the same model, so no crappy gimicky secondary model to the kit. (saving room for a bunch of cool bits)

Makaber
05-03-2012, 18:06
My problem with the Skaven Cannon/Catapult is this: It's clearly a Warp Lightning Cannon primarily, and a Doomclaw Catapult secundarily. However, the cannon doesn't really improve on it's predecessor, and the catapult looks like someone made a catapult using cannon parts. It would have been a much better allocation of resources to just make a dedicated catapult kit, and keeping the old cannon as it was (eventually making it finecast). I guess the cannon would be a little more expensive, but it's not like you need/ought to have more than one of them.

Hell, if you ask me, Skaven don't really need a damn catapult in the first place, in between their cannons, mortars, and flamethrowers.

Confessor_Atol
05-03-2012, 18:14
Finecast is never the answer......

jack da greenskin
05-03-2012, 18:25
Finecast is never the answer......

QFT. I agree then with the response to my post, but because the majority of people will be using the cannon, its not such a massive problem. That said, we're screwed if in the next skaven dex the catapault becomes good :p

JamesR
05-03-2012, 18:27
Oh, the classic "they did one thing I don't like, therefore GW will probably do everything in the future wrong. Abandon hope all ye who hast witnessed my displeasure with the mid-legs of yon tervigon! GW is doomed! The end is neigh!"

ArtificerArmour
05-03-2012, 18:40
Whats wrong with the cygor kit? All that needs is a bit of extra bits, but I reckon both models are great - just the rules are meh.

RevEv
05-03-2012, 18:41
I agree with the OP, but I think there are worse examples. Crypt horrors/vargheists made me go "wtf",

I'm currently building this kit and am actually chucking the bits for the crypt horrors as they are useless without the bits I've used for the Vargheists. Unlike many dual kits there is nothing I can see I'll use on its own (ie the necromancer from the mortis engine) or as part of a conversion.

ForgottenLore
05-03-2012, 18:46
I'm with Jack, I don't understand the hate on the skaven cannon/catapult. I just went back and looked at the 360 views of both and I think they look very distinct, if anything the cannon is the lamer looking one, but honestly if someone didn't know the two models were made from the same kit I doubt they would realize it right away just from looking at assembled ones.

As for the Tyrannofex, it sounds more like your problem is that the actual model doesn't match the text description of the creature rather than the model itself. That is more an issue with GW's design process than the fault of dual model kits.

Gunless Ganger
05-03-2012, 18:55
Oh, the classic "they did one thing I don't like, therefore GW will probably do everything in the future wrong. Abandon hope all ye who hast witnessed my displeasure with the mid-legs of yon tervigon! GW is doomed! The end is neigh!"

Honestly I didn't get that vibe from this thread at all. It's more just a general discussion of dual kits and what people think of them and if there is a trend towards kits that don't "work" as well.

I like most of the dual kits I've seen. The Ogre Ironblaster/scrap launcher and Stonehorn/thundertusk kits were great IMO.

I'll echo the sentiment of others that the warplightning cannon/catapult looks bad. But I think it just boils down to the sculptor and how they make the model - some you will like, some you won't like but others will. I think. in principle the idea of a rickety platform holding either a cannon or a catapult is not bad - maybe this sculptor just didn't pull it off. Same with the new Tyranid dual kit.

Makaber
05-03-2012, 19:36
As for the Tyrannofex, it sounds more like your problem is that the actual model doesn't match the text description of the creature rather than the model itself. That is more an issue with GW's design process than the fault of dual model kits.

No, my overall issue is I feel I'm seeing a trend where they go for dual kit not because it makes sense, but because they can.

Previously, that often led to situations where one or the other variation didn't live up to its full potential because they had to compromise. Everything is subjective, but a good example for me is the Ghorgon, which has a pretty weird back musculature because they had to take into account to two-armed Cygor as well. Or the two Arks, where the Doomsday Ark looks too much like a Ghost Ark turned upside-down (probably because it is). But again, others are free to disgree on the spesifics, though I think we can all agree many of the models would be better (even if they're already pretty good!) if they'd focused on one design instead of accomodating for two.

You're partially right in my reasons for not being a huge fan of the Tyrannofex, but not because it doesn't fit the description per se, but because of what that implies, which is that they're willing to disregard the background in order to get away with making half as many models as they ought to. That, in turn, means sacrificing variety, uniqueness, and artistic integrity. And as someone who collects models because they're pretty, that's a pretty big deal to me.

Damien 1427
05-03-2012, 19:50
The thing is, they do this because it's this or we don't get some kits at all. It's about the cost of the molds and the amount of space they have in shops. Whilst it might not be perfect, and we may get some kits that some people think are less than great (Speaking for myself, I quite like the Skaven Cannon/Catapult and the Big Gribbly Nid Things), I'd rather have the choice of it being there and not liking it, than it not being there at all.

ashc
05-03-2012, 19:59
The thing is, they do this because it's this or we don't get some kits at all. It's about the cost of the molds and the amount of space they have in shops. Whilst it might not be perfect, and we may get some kits that some people think are less than great (Speaking for myself, I quite like the Skaven Cannon/Catapult and the Big Gribbly Nid Things), I'd rather have the choice of it being there and not liking it, than it not being there at all.

A-Thank you Damien 1427, they have actually done it so they can keep costs of producing new kits down by doubling up on new entries in army books. This is so players get choice, options and new units, whilst also keeping the number of kits on shelves reasonable.

Vazalaar
05-03-2012, 20:00
I quite like the dual kits especially the Black Knight/hexwraith kit. I hope to see something simular with the new empire releases.

loveless
05-03-2012, 20:09
I suppose it can be problematic with organics if the joins aren't properly made to accomodate such things as excess limbs...though in the case of the Cygor/Ghorgon, there is Chaos at work :p

Mechanical kits make sense as dual kits (to the point of, from my perspective, looking like a waste if it doesn't include some options, even if it's just weapon changes). Things tend to share a chassis style - the Arks just rotate it around the center pivot. It still makes sense.

Tyranids - for all their organics - have a rather mechanical nature in constructing their units. Things are made to address a need, and that can often be accomplished just by altering a specific breed into something a bit different. It makes a bit of sense to have similar Tyranid creatures in a size category if the base creature is found suitable by the Hive Mind to both act as a mobile spawning pool and carry about the heavy artillery.

I don't know - I guess from an army standpoint, I expect some things to look similar from a distance...that and I'm rather fond of the Tyrannofex *shrugs*. You're free to your opinion, naturally, I'm just commenting.

T10
05-03-2012, 20:16
I mostly agree with the OP on this, though my issue with the dual-kits are those whose core variant are so imilar to each other that making one of each and setting them down side by side becomes... awkward. It actually works better with constructed object such as the warp lighting cannon/plague claw catapult and the screaming bell/plague furnace because they can conceivably have the same industrial base: similar craftsmanship and building materials and design styles make these things ultimately reproducible.

Creatures, on the other hand, are harder to deal with. The High Elf Dragon, while not a dual-kit, is an extreme example of a wonderfully dynamic center-piece model that can be used to represent multiple kinds of creature (well, levels of the same: a dragon). I can't see myself using more than one of these models: It has a wonderfully dynamic poise that looks extremely out-of-place when set beside another with the same! This carries over to other creatures as well: The coven throne/mortis engine, the new zombie dragon/terrorgheist, the gorgon/cygor. The core of these models are freakishly similar: I can't use two of them in the same army.

That being said that doesn't mean I won't get myself "one of each", as it were.

-T10

Lord Inquisitor
05-03-2012, 20:35
I think for the most part the dual kits are quite successful. The Ogre kingdom Ironblaster and Stonehorn kits look pretty sweet as either incarnation. The Coven Throne/Mortis Engine kit is likewise pretty cool (apart from the whole floating in the air thing which didn't work too well for me but easily fixed by taking some clippers to the bottom of the spirit horde) and they did a good job of making the top details distinctive enough that they really look like two different units rather than one unit with differing accessories. The zombie dragon/terrorgheist also managed well to make them distinctive in a very clever way (although I really don't like the zombie dragon). The pose looks quite dramatically different.

I also had success with magnetising the Stonehorn/Thundertusk, also making it eaiser to transport. The zombie dragon/terrorgeist would likewise be magnetisable with a bit of conversion work (essentially swapping out the head) although I decided in the end that I just wanted it to be a terrorgheist. The coven throne/mortis engine could be magnetisable perhaps but very difficult, at least if you want all the gubbins on there.

TimLeeson
05-03-2012, 22:22
I'm pretty on the side-line with these multi-unit kits. I think sometimes they look great, I think the Necron range inparticular nailed it (the immortals and deathmarks especially), on the other hand some armies units look virtually identical, like the grey knight one (I think they perhaps tried to squeeze too many in?) and terminator one (still trying to figure out what actually makes the paladins and terminators any visually different? anyone know?). That said, It's better than nothing - so for the most part I am for these.

Sheena Easton
05-03-2012, 22:43
I think they work for the most part but I think the Zombie Dragon / Terrorgheist is ultimately supposed to be a Terrorgheist with the Zombie Dragon an afterthought, and the Cygor / Ghorgon doesn't work as either. The Tervigon / Tyrannofex works well enough.

One thing I don't like though is when a unit / model seems to have been designed on the basis it can fit onto a duel kit - the VC MI units are a case in point. I think its quite telling they have uninspired background that could be lifted from any generic fantasy series / fanfic and uninspired kits.

loveless
05-03-2012, 22:52
(still trying to figure out what actually makes the paladins and terminators any visually different? anyone know?).

Paladins have different helmets and typically some sort of icon on their back - that said, you could run them as either and no one would be likely to notice.


I think they work for the most part but I think the Zombie Dragon / Terrorgheist is ultimately supposed to be a Terrorgheist with the Zombie Dragon an afterthought,

Unlikely, given the striking resemblance the Zombie Dragon has to Blanche's Zombie Dragon artwork.

Grimtuff
06-03-2012, 00:32
Unlikely, given the striking resemblance the Zombie Dragon has to Blanche's Zombie Dragon artwork.

I think the point that Sheena's making (and several other have made this point too) is the Zombie Dragon looks more like a Zombie Wyvern. It does not resemble a Warhammer Dragon at all, as it lacks the forelimbs. Something which had to be compromised when making it a dual kit with the Terrorgheist.

Or not. :p

Hendarion
06-03-2012, 05:41
I'm just thinking maybe they're pushing the dual kit thing too far. At least most times they compromise a little, but here it's like they disregarded the concept of the Codex entry to cut corners. Games Workshop has always claimed to make games to support its models, rather than the other way around, but this makes me wonder. And it's clearly a step in the wrong direction.

Exactly this are my thoughts about many of the new models. I don't have a problem if they release another option with a kit "they have to do anyway". But fusing two distinct things into one kit just for the sake of doing so... I'm not a fan of that. Chronos/Talos and Necrons are worst in my opinion.

Hellebore
06-03-2012, 07:38
Many of these dual kits are only dual kits by choice, not because GW had two units already existing and tried to figure out a way to combine them in one box. Virtually all of these dual kits are invented to BE dual kits. The Terrorgheist only existed in the current armybook; it basically looks like they invented it just to create a dual kit with a (bad) zombie dragon. The same is true for many although not all of the dual kits.

The black knight kit is another one - they invented the wraith/hex/whatever knights to create a dual kit, they didn't exist beforehand.

So dual kits aren't a necessity, they're a deliberate design choice by GW.

Hellebore

Hendarion
06-03-2012, 08:16
So GW decided to give Snipers to Necrons because they already had bodies for Immortals? They also decided to add a Chronos (with totally different artwork btw) because they had a Talos? Or the Tervigon? They decided to change the look of the Tyrannofex from what they wrote in the Codex because of what? Not in order to reduce their output by one box by merging it with the Tervigon?
Then I badly hope GW doesn't decide to add new Eldar Aspects by just giving "another" weapon or helmet to Guardians (hello Dire Avengers btw). I wouldn't want those. A new unit (except maybe for Space Marines) should have a new look, not just one different bit. (I'm aware the current Dire Avengers aren't just that, but checking the new Necrons, I can't tell that about so many of the "new" units)

eldargal
06-03-2012, 08:25
I think it should be pointed out that none of the dual kits have compromised the aesthetic of an existing unit, so I don't think Eldar Aspect Warriors have anything to fear. GK terminators still look like they always did, any criticism of the kit is that the paladins look too similar. Given that Jes Goodwin created the unique look of each Aspect and is head of the plastic department I doubt he is going to deliberately bastardise anything. Having said that, the Hexwraith/Black Knight kit was a convincing example of how different looks a dual kit can produce.

I'm all for dual kits myself, most of them are very impressive.

Hellebore
06-03-2012, 09:47
So GW decided to give Snipers to Necrons because they already had bodies for Immortals? They also decided to add a Chronos (with totally different artwork btw) because they had a Talos? Or the Tervigon? They decided to change the look of the Tyrannofex from what they wrote in the Codex because of what? Not in order to reduce their output by one box by merging it with the Tervigon?
Then I badly hope GW doesn't decide to add new Eldar Aspects by just giving "another" weapon or helmet to Guardians (hello Dire Avengers btw). I wouldn't want those. A new unit (except maybe for Space Marines) should have a new look, not just one different bit. (I'm aware the current Dire Avengers aren't just that, but checking the new Necrons, I can't tell that about so many of the "new" units)

Sure they did. It seems pretty obvious that they're building armies around product sales. They're taking preexisting units and inventing new ones to justify dual kits. You can argue that without that we wouldn't see them in plastic at all, but then there is the argument of compromise actually affecting model quality and cost (quality highlighted by the zombie dragon, cost by all dual kits). If they can invent new units to add to armies and make them dual kits then they are going to and have done it. It makes financial sense as they need to invent new things for people to buy, but need to cut how much it costs to produce it. If you can add two units to an army with different rules but only spend say 1.2x a normal miniature's price in development, it makes financial sense.

Hellebore

N1AK
06-03-2012, 10:42
So far the dual kits haven't been an issue. If anything my only gripe is that fluff/fit to the army can be ignored in the quest to find alternative uses for kits. Both Hexwraiths (which I like the look of) and Vargheists have wafer thin justiifications for existing. Hopefully VC were the exception because the previous dual kits in Warhammer have fitted the armies well.

loveless
06-03-2012, 14:54
I think the point that Sheena's making (and several other have made this point too) is the Zombie Dragon looks more like a Zombie Wyvern. It does not resemble a Warhammer Dragon at all, as it lacks the forelimbs. Something which had to be compromised when making it a dual kit with the Terrorgheist.

Or not. :p

Eh, the plastic zombie dragon is this picture in miniature form: 134690

If anything, the Terrorgheist was a "Hmm...what else can we do with this kit..." idea.


They also decided to add a Chronos (with totally different artwork btw) because they had a Talos?

Where is the Chronos artwork?

Lord Inquisitor
06-03-2012, 14:54
One thing that struck me with the vargheist/crypt horror kit is that there are essentially two kits in there. I think all they share are the legs. There was no real reason they couldn't have made two distinct sprues and sold them separately. That's a bit of a shame. I think most people will try and convert them to make 6 MI from the kit, so it seems silly of GW not to put three extra legs on the sprue and massively increase the percepted value of the kit (or make two kits at more than half the cost of the single kit and actually make more money overall while appearing to reduce prices!).

ashc
06-03-2012, 16:12
Instead they try and sell you two boxes containing the same stuff, and it takes up less shelf space...

Lord Inquisitor
06-03-2012, 16:22
This is true. Less shelf space may well be a factor. I still don't understand why they don't add three more legs and give you the ability to make 3 of each. It'll massively increase the perceived value of the box. Then again, I guess they're hoping people will buy several boxes to make Crypt Horrors and several more to make Vargheists and throw away all the remaining bits.

ashc
06-03-2012, 16:25
It's exactly that. A moneyspinner.

loveless
06-03-2012, 16:34
throw away all the remaining bits.

I've already heard someone on this forum doing exactly that, which I found confusing.

The Horror/Vargheists share chests if I remember right - the back halves are different, but I think the fronts are the same. I don't own a kit, so I don't remember for sure, but I seem to recall it being that way.

Hendarion
06-03-2012, 16:53
If you can add two units to an army with different rules but only spend say 1.2x a normal miniature's price in development, it makes financial sense.
Yea, that's true of course. Especially if you consider a dual-kit costs the consumer probably 1.5x the amount of money he would pay for a single kit of the thing he wants to have. I mean GW needs to produce more sprues (say 3 sprues for a dual-kit instead of 2 for a single-kit) and would be stupid not to charge more for that extra sprue, so it probably would cost the customers less if they had the option to buy just the thing they want instead of paying for extra bits they'll never need because they can only build one unit with them anyway. At least I'm buying a Talos/Chronos box to build a Chronos and I buy another box to build a Talos. And then I have a lot of spare parts I paid for, but can't use.
So this way GW can sell more stuff for more money, without offering more use of these extra items (yea, yea, you convert stuff with it, but only few people really do so and still conversions still need a base-item to use them on, scratch-building with bits is quite rare). Clever thing actually.

Confessor_Atol
06-03-2012, 19:36
You know, after going through years of 6th and 7th with the warhammer world missing quite a few of the monsters listed in the book, I much prefer the option of having kit available to not having them available. Players still have the option of creating their own models if they aren't satisfied with the kits GW puts out. That said, as a fantasy player I'm pretty happy about the dule kits they've created.

Sheena Easton
06-03-2012, 20:02
Eh, the plastic zombie dragon is this picture in miniature form: 134690

If anything, the Terrorgheist was a "Hmm...what else can we do with this kit..." idea.



Except that the kit looks like a Terrorgheist, not a Zombie Dragon - as does the artwork. The Zombie Dragon Wyvern looks like a spare head tacked on to the Terrorgheist spruce.

ashc
06-03-2012, 20:21
So now we are just complaining the zombie dragon as conceived in that picture is not dragon-y enough? - off-topic, and nothing to do with dual kits.

lbecks
06-03-2012, 20:30
I'd prefer unique kits with multiple options but some of the dual kits are nice.

loveless
06-03-2012, 20:30
as does the artwork.

This is like showing someone a stop sign and having them insist it says "Banana" on it...

Lord Inquisitor
06-03-2012, 20:47
Except that the kit looks like a Terrorgheist, not a Zombie Dragon - as does the artwork. The Zombie Dragon Wyvern looks like a spare head tacked on to the Terrorgheist spruce.

But that artwork has been around for donkey's years. Certainly since the last edition of the vampire book - see page 55 in the old Vampire Counts book. Seems to me the Terrorgheist concept came later (or was made as an alternate form at the same time, perhaps). It seems doubtful that the current Zombie Dragon form was designed to take advantage of a plastic kit technology that wouldn't be available for several years.

Deadly Cornbread
06-03-2012, 21:37
I love the dual kits. As a Necron player I love having multiple units to build. After years of building just warrior models I find the options all the Necron dual kits allow me are fun and distinct looking. I also have enough extra bits to create reanimation protocol markers making "dead" triarch praetorians face down.

And honestly I remember the years ago when most models weren't represented or came in blister packs of 2 and you wanted to make multiple 10 man squads (Tyranid gargoyles for instance).

Also dual kits allow new codex releases to bring more of the new units to the players quicker. Imagine the Necron release if it only had single kits. We'd still be waiting for a large release to all the units that never existed before the codex. At least now I can create most of the army.

And whoever claims the Necron vehicles look the same, I agree. But it's not worse of an offender than a predator compared to a rhino or razorback. It's just those kits have existed longer and players accept it. The hammerhead and skyray kits look identical as well. I could keep going but you get the idea I'm making.

AlexHolker
07-03-2012, 01:55
And whoever claims the Necron vehicles look the same, I agree. But it's not worse of an offender than a predator compared to a rhino or razorback. It's just those kits have existed longer and players accept it. The hammerhead and skyray kits look identical as well. I could keep going but you get the idea I'm making.
The way the Imperial and Tau vehicles work is how military vehicles work in real life. A Merkava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerkavaMk4_ZE001m.jpg) looks like a Namer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IDF-Namer003.jpg) because they're built on a common chassis, using the same parts in the same way. A Ghost Ark and a Doomsday Ark use the same parts, but in different ways. It's more like a kitbash than a real vehicle.

Deadly Cornbread
07-03-2012, 02:07
The way the Imperial and Tau vehicles work is how military vehicles work in real life. A Merkava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerkavaMk4_ZE001m.jpg) looks like a Namer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IDF-Namer003.jpg) because they're built on a common chassis, using the same parts in the same way. A Ghost Ark and a Doomsday Ark use the same parts, but in different ways. It's more like a kitbash than a real vehicle.

True, they simply flipped it upside down to make it more distinguishable from a ghost arc. They could have left it upright and placed the cannon where the warriors are standing. But it makes it blend it too much with the transports. And I believe that the dual kit in this case was very deliberately designed to be one.

I still don't see why they couldn't jumble all the imperial rhino chassis into one kit, other than there would be a price increase. Regardless if this is how it's done in real life, I think they never did it before because the resources we have now weren't available. And I still think it will happen with imperial vehicles eventually. It'll become the norm to make all kits multi purpose.

Lord Inquisitor
07-03-2012, 02:26
Well, I guess they did start with some of the imperial vehicles to some degree. The crusader/redeemer for example, or even earlier with the predator.

Deadly Cornbread
07-03-2012, 02:41
That's true, LordInquisitor. I never really noticed that. Which is odd considering I have a redeemer.

sverigesson
07-03-2012, 02:49
All these dual kits, some good, some bad... And they can't even include the Vendetta's twinlinked lascannons in the damn Valkyrie box. Sigh.

T10
07-03-2012, 14:06
For tanks it's mostly a matter of fitting different weapons onto the same chassis and coming up with a new name for it. The end result is still a tank.

With the Necron stuff it's a bit tougher for me to to swallow since I kinda figure them to be of a "form follows function" kind of industry-base; that they purpose-build their equipment in much the same way Tyranids breed troops for specific tasks. When the Necrons use the same chassis for a classy command throne and for a bad-ass cannon it seems to me that one of them is not making full use of its potential.

-T10

Tay051173096
07-03-2012, 20:16
The main problem I find is the sheer amout of bits that are now left over when you use these kits.

I love converstions and kitbashing but the piles of odd parts you end up with is starting to get silly.

Hendarion
07-03-2012, 20:50
The main problem I find is the sheer amout of bits that are now left over when you use these kits.
I love converstions and kitbashing but the piles of odd parts you end up with is starting to get silly.
As I explained earlier, it isn't silly, it is a brilliant marketing strategy. They sell you stuff which you pay for, but can't use. So they make money by selling something that they otherwise wouldn't be able to sell.

You know, it's like you buy 10 eggs for 10$ from a farmer, of which 4 of the eggs are actually foul before you manage to eat them (because lets say you manage to eat 1 egg every 2 days and after 12 days the rest is decayed). But the farmer earns more by that than by selling you 6 eggs for 6$, although in both cases you have to buy new eggs after 12 days. Very smart move. :)

thenamelessdead
07-03-2012, 22:12
Does anyone but me dislike the thought that you might be paying for more than one model and only being able to contruct one? Having plenty of bits is all very well, but I'd rather have the minimum of options and reduce the amount of effectively wasted plastic and keep the price down.

Hendarion
08-03-2012, 05:34
See above. Not only might, you surely do.

Vazalaar
08-03-2012, 07:20
Does anyone but me dislike the thought that you might be paying for more than one model and only being able to contruct one? Having plenty of bits is all very well, but I'd rather have the minimum of options and reduce the amount of effectively wasted plastic and keep the price down.

If anything I would prefer they add even more options.

Darnok
08-03-2012, 07:56
I see the OPs point, and I agree to some extent.

Apart from the Skaven cannon-a-pult I have yet to see a double purpose kit from GW I do not like at all. Every single one of them has at least one build I really like. On the other hand that means: there are often things I don't like. But that is not my major problem with the concept as a whole. What I do not like is the "sameness" of both versions: they always share a huge section of the same parts, and I do not like how they then look side to side. Tke the new VC kit: on their own, I like both versions, they are beautiful. But I would never use both types in the same army, because I do not like how similar, yet different, they look. Those are not tanks with similar chassis, but unique spectral... somethings. But both ghost crowds are the same?

It may sound irrational, but it is how I feel about them. Luckily I can just choose which version I want, and stick to it. The great thing about the concept is exactly that: we get more options, and more freedom. The most important thing is: more great models.

Druchii Monkey
08-03-2012, 09:05
Very well said Darnok. Agree completely.

Sai-Lauren
08-03-2012, 13:24
The way the Imperial and Tau vehicles work is how military vehicles work in real life. A Merkava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MerkavaMk4_ZE001m.jpg) looks like a Namer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IDF-Namer003.jpg) because they're built on a common chassis, using the same parts in the same way. A Ghost Ark and a Doomsday Ark use the same parts, but in different ways. It's more like a kitbash than a real vehicle.
Well, the Namer is based off the Merkava chassis, and it's by no means the first AFV to do that (just for the allies in WW2, the Kangaroo was an APC, initially converted from a Priest SPG, then later on they used Rams, the Firefly was a Sherman with a 17pdr gun and some heavy conversion work in the turret, and there's all sorts of conversions off the Churchill).

So, in some instances - the Manticore/Deathstrike, Fire Prism/Night Spinner, Shadowsword and the gun varients, etc, it works.

The problem is that some of the kits are forced into sharing the base components.

It's not a bad idea in principle, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for everything.

Lord Inquisitor
08-03-2012, 15:51
To be fair, that's a catch-22 for GW if they do make dual kits.

Terrorgheist/zombie dragon - urgh, they're too similar! Too many shared pieces.
Vargheist/Crypt Horrors - urgh, too many wasted pieces! Why not just make two full kits?

Tell you what bugs me more to be honest. Too many dual names! VC have just gotten silly. I'm just going to call everything a Varcryptgheist and be done with it. :rolleyes:

Mr. Smuckles
08-03-2012, 15:53
Eh the dual kits are fine. Just because every once in a while there is a crappy one does not mean the entire process of making dual kits is flawed.

lbecks
08-03-2012, 15:58
To be fair, that's a catch-22 for GW if they do make dual kits.

Terrorgheist/zombie dragon - urgh, they're too similar! Too many shared pieces.
Vargheist/Crypt Horrors - urgh, too many wasted pieces! Why not just make two full kits?

Tell you what bugs me more to be honest. Too many dual names! VC have just gotten silly. I'm just going to call everything a Varcryptgheist and be done with it. :rolleyes:

I prefer the "wasted" pieces to too similar.

Sureshot05
08-03-2012, 16:42
I think Darnok has said everything that I feel on the matter. There are some dual kits that both builds look excellent and I'd think about picking up two (VC new Cavalry, Tyrant&Flyrant) but some others just look two similar and thus one spoils the other (Mawlock & Trygron, Plaguepult&Warp Cannon, Coven throne&... etc) thus i'm only likely to buy one if i like the model.

theJ
08-03-2012, 16:49
Y'know... this whole dual kit thingy would work a lot better on infantry, where you are actually justified having the models look about the same, but with different weapons and maybe a helmet or shoulderpad.

Think of ye' good ol' imperial infantry. One kit could make standard guardsmen, conscripts, special weapon squads and veterans all in one, and if they could fit all the various options (plasma/melta :shifty:) in there, I don't think anyone would complain.
Marines could easily have a single 10-man kit with all the options needed to make tactical, devastator or sternguard squads, including several sets of sculpted shoulderpads and ornate helmets for the sternguard.
The Empire already has a mixed kit for their state troopers and I have yet to hear anyone complain about it (in terms of options - aesthetic direction is a question for another time).
Tanks, as mentioned, work well combined (some exceptions may apply), as, just like in real life, they are usually based around the same "frame" anyway. Swap the guns around and give it a dozer blade and suddenly your predator is a Vindicator. No problem as far as I can see.

Monsters, though? Monsters are individuals by nature. I have great respect for the sculptors who can actually make a dual-kit monster work, but, as Darnok mentioned, even if both options end up looking good, they still look weird if fielded in the same battle.

What I'd rather see is kits built to give variety to a single type of monster rather than give two limited ones. If they could make something with the sheer weight of options as the good ol' Giant (possibly the best monster kit ever, tbh) and combine it with the posability of the Dreadknight... we'd be in business. Not only could I make a monster that actually looked unique (more or less), but I could even field (and therefore buy) several of them without it looking stupid on the field.

I can dream, can't I?

AlexHolker
09-03-2012, 01:20
Y'know... this whole dual kit thingy would work a lot better on infantry, where you are actually justified having the models look about the same, but with different weapons and maybe a helmet or shoulderpad.

Think of ye' good ol' imperial infantry. One kit could make standard guardsmen, conscripts, special weapon squads and veterans all in one, and if they could fit all the various options (plasma/melta :shifty:) in there, I don't think anyone would complain.
Marines easily have a single 10-man kit with all the options needed to make tactical, devastator or sternguard squads, including several sets of sculpted shoulderpads and ornate helmets for the sternguard.
The problem with this is primarily that it gives GW an excuse to jack up the price - if this happened, I can guarantee that your Tactical squads would start costing as much as Devastators (20 pounds for five).

vcassano
09-03-2012, 10:05
Dual kits aren't perfect - in many cases they are a compromise. However, as already addressed in the thread, if it weren't for duel kits we probably wouldn't see models for many of these items, or they'd be in metal/finecast. So we get more options for models and the accompanying rules with the minor downside of SOME of the kits being a bit of a compromise. In an ideal world such a compromise wouldn't be necessary, but GW has financial concerns it has to address in order to keep producing the quality goods that they provide, so if this is the compromise that is to be made, I don't mind.

loveless
09-03-2012, 19:53
Y'know... this whole dual kit thingy would work a lot better on infantry, where you are actually justified having the models look about the same, but with different weapons and maybe a helmet or shoulderpad.


The main issue here is that you end up not using half of the dang kit when they do it to infantry. Grey Knight (in Power Armor) kits have a plethora of bits, from weapon options to backpack options that devour valuable sprue space. I honestly don't think it would be that difficult to put 10 Grey Knights in a box if you lost the Falchions (crazy option to add in the first place) and made the Interceptor packs smarter (maybe an addition to the backpack instead of a whole new one).

Don't get me wrong, I like options...but I hate having to buy them every dang time. Look at the Immortals/Deathmarks. Great kit, the end models look good, but there are 15 guns in every box for 5 models! I have no idea what I'm going to do with the giant stack of Deathmark weapons I'll end up with...is there even a market for these second-hand when every Necron player will have 3,000 of them in the bitz box?

I guess I'd rather see more kits that change based on how they fit together instead of "look at all of the extra components we included!". The Necron barges aren't bad - you either end up with a spare Lord or a Tesla turret that could make for fun defensive installation terrain.

Now, I'm not sure how much leftover plastic you'll get out of the new Tyranid boxes - looks like a hefty bit, really. I'd like to see the sprues after someone's taken off the necessary bits for the Tervigon or Tyrannofex, and likewise for the Tyrant and Flyrant.

At least the Warrior Boneswords/Lash Whips are separate - can you imagine how much GW would charge if they were all integrated into the Warrior box? Yeesh.

lbecks
09-03-2012, 20:00
The main issue here is that you end up not using half of the dang kit when they do it to infantry. Grey Knight (in Power Armor) kits have a plethora of bits, from weapon options to backpack options that devour valuable sprue space. I honestly don't think it would be that difficult to put 10 Grey Knights in a box if you lost the Falchions (crazy option to add in the first place) and made the Interceptor packs smarter (maybe an addition to the backpack instead of a whole new one).

Don't get me wrong, I like options...but I hate having to buy them every dang time. Look at the Immortals/Deathmarks. Great kit, the end models look good, but there are 15 guns in every box for 5 models! I have no idea what I'm going to do with the giant stack of Deathmark weapons I'll end up with...is there even a market for these second-hand when every Necron player will have 3,000 of them in the bitz box?

I guess I'd rather see more kits that change based on how they fit together instead of "look at all of the extra components we included!". The Necron barges aren't bad - you either end up with a spare Lord or a Tesla turret that could make for fun defensive installation terrain.

Now, I'm not sure how much leftover plastic you'll get out of the new Tyranid boxes - looks like a hefty bit, really. I'd like to see the sprues after someone's taken off the necessary bits for the Tervigon or Tyrannofex, and likewise for the Tyrant and Flyrant.

At least the Warrior Boneswords/Lash Whips are separate - can you imagine how much GW would charge if they were all integrated into the Warrior box? Yeesh.

If they gave you a single option grey knights kit they would probably charge . . . 33 US dollars. Just like the single option assault marines kit. Though I did get annoyed when they charged an extra few dollars in the vargheist/crypt horror dual kit. All the other single monstrous infantry was less. That may be a bad sign of things to come.

loveless
09-03-2012, 20:26
If they gave you a single option grey knights kit they would probably charge . . . 33 US dollars. Just like the single option assault marines kit.

That assault marine kit used to be a lot less...I didn't even realize it was a $33 kit now...last time I looked at buying one, it was $25. Yeesh. That said, I still say it's ridiculous. Why can they give me 10 Grey Hunters/Blood Claws/Wolf Guard in PA for $37.25, but they can only give me 5 Grey Knights for $33? The alternate backpacks must factor into it somewhere (as in GW's "yeah, but you get..." mentality rather than any sane costing).

Mind, the Space Wolf box is just 2 of the same sprue busted in half. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if they halved the box and upped the price to $25 (or $33 :shifty:) the next time they get updated. I mean, they did it to LotR...


Though I did get annoyed when they charged an extra few dollars in the vargheist/crypt horror dual kit. All the other single monstrous infantry was less. That may be a bad sign of things to come.

You're paying for wings, there...I guess? Struck me as odd, too.

lbecks
09-03-2012, 20:46
Aren't grey knights worth more points-wise? I don't know, i don't play 40k. The Space Wolves, Regular Tactical, and Chaos Space Marines are all at the 37.25 price point. The space wolves come with tons of parts, the Chaos come with decent extras, and the Regular Tactical are bare bones. I believe Jes Goodwin said that GW only cares about how many legs (and bodies) you get and whatever else the designer can fit on the frame is fine.

Sgt John Keel
09-03-2012, 23:59
If they gave you a single option grey knights kit they would probably charge . . . 33 US dollars. Just like the single option assault marines kit. Though I did get annoyed when they charged an extra few dollars in the vargheist/crypt horror dual kit. All the other single monstrous infantry was less. That may be a bad sign of things to come.

I'm not sure if it's fair to characterize the Assault Marine kit as single option kit, you do get a spare five torsi and backpacks/jump packs.

(Although the kit is spectacularly boring, with all the copy-paste going on in it.)

Nogginthenog
10-03-2012, 12:01
I'm not sure if it's fair to characterize the Assault Marine kit as single option kit, you do get a spare five torsi and backpacks/jump packs.

(Although the kit is spectacularly boring, with all the copy-paste going on in it.)

The BA Death Company box is a much better assault squad kit, same price too (at least here in the UK)

More weapon options, more interesting sculpts, only downside is sanding off all the blood drops if you are doing anything but a BA/BA successor army.

Sgt John Keel
10-03-2012, 17:35
The BA Death Company box is a much better assault squad kit, same price too (at least here in the UK)

More weapon options, more interesting sculpts, only downside is sanding off all the blood drops if you are doing anything but a BA/BA successor army.

And also no torsi with the jump pack straps, for the slightly more fastidious of us.