Not sure if this would even COUNT as News and Rumor, so feel free to lock this thread if it doesn't count, or if this topic has already been discussed.
In any case, my Forge World Newsletter email came in today, and with it was the solution to that jigsaw puzzle thing they've been doing the last few times....
This is what they showed us. To me it looks like a standard Malcador chassis, armed with the Inferno gun you ususally can only buy for Titans. I'd say Flamestorm Cannon, but the gun just looks a tad oversized to be that....
It's been discussed, we just haven't had the full image until now. It looks cool to me - I hope that it has sponsons on both sides unlike that absurd Valdor or whatever the big laser cannon one is called. I suspect that the join between the tank and the fuel tank will be as brittle as all feth, so perhaps it would be wiser to not stick it on and/or magnetise it.
Otherwise the gun looks suitably beefy and altogether absurd - perfect for the Guard really.
Got that right...but the base BASE chasis is still a Malcador. It does like a Valdor where they ripped out the tank gun and just stuck a really big flamethrower in its place....I'm actually quite pleased with this model. Looks very nice. Very over the top. Very Imperial.
What stats does the actual Titan flamer have? Do you think FW will take the easy route and just mount the same gun with the same stats on a tank to save time?
S7 AP3, Hellstorm Template is the Inferno Gun. I could see them just doing that...I mean, that's kind of the theme for Imperial superheavy tanks, no? Each one mounts a Titan class weapon along with some smaller doodads.
Warhound-size Flamer is exactly like the Hellhounds, except 1.5x Range, Hellstorm template, +1 Str, - 1 AP
The Valdor tank hunter? Piece of Sh*t. 1 Side sponson, what the fu..? Not even a destroyer weapon, but str 10... has to hit with regular guard bs 3... at least it is ordnance... No special rules against super heavies whatsoever.... Shock Pulse may be nice, but with a S 10 Ap 1 ordnance primary weapon, I suspect to OVERKILL a normal vehicle..
I'd get 2 Destroyer Tank Hunters anytime instead of this thing..
H.B.M.C. wrote: so perhaps it would be wiser to not stick it on and/or magnetise it.
A large magnetic ball bearing and a magnetic washer/ring would make a good coupling as it would allow the trailer to be flexible when going across tabletop terrain. Shouldn't be too hard to attach.
As a model, it's just jumped to just under the vulkan megabolter Macharius on my "to buy" list as it'll be nice against Arakasi's Orks
SilverMK2 wrote:What about its design is stupid? I think it is a pretty cool design.
Here's my beef: it looks like someone at FW just took a 3-upped flamer and said, hey, let's put this on a Valdor chassis. Aside from the weapon needing to be recognizable as a flamer, what purpose does having the gun look like that have? Do the pilot lights for it need to be as big as a normal SM flamer? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. I mean, not to delve too deeply into the "realism" aspect, but real life flame tanks just have the flames come out the end of a barrel - they look pretty much like any other tank. This just looks like one of the FW designer was given the task of coming up with a medium heavy flame tank and he sat around checking FB and reading wikipedia entries until a week before the project was due. Then in the last week, he said, "AH HA! I'll take a 3-up flamer and mount it on a Valdor. Done!"
What I'd like to know now is what this lumbering piece of ancient gak is going to do against the Eldar. Other than helping the Imperium lose hard again that is.
I think we'll get rules in IA11, and no test rules before then. It really doesn't matter though guys - the Malcador is a piece of junk, and every tank based on its profile is a piece of junk as well. This will not be a good tank, it will be like all the other FW superheavies - cool to look at, not worth a damn in-game. I mean really... just look at the Macharius. All those points for an extra Battlecannon? Two Russes will be better than it.
BrookM wrote:What I'd like to know now is what this lumbering piece of ancient gak is going to do against the Eldar. Other than helping the Imperium lose hard again that is.
Maybe the Guard know they're in an Imperial Armour book, and thus have resigned themselves to the fact that it is simply impossible for the Imperium to ever win in those books. Therefore, operating under this assumption, and the fact that they're in a bitter and cold wasteland, they decided to make a MASSIVE flame tank to make their final moments a bit warmer.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think we'll get rules in IA11, and no test rules before then. It really doesn't matter though guys - the Malcador is a piece of junk, and every tank based on its profile is a piece of junk as well. This will not be a good tank, it will be like all the other FW superheavies - cool to look at, not worth a damn in-game. I mean really... just look at the Macharius. All those points for an extra Battlecannon? Two Russes will be better than it.
BrookM wrote:What I'd like to know now is what this lumbering piece of ancient gak is going to do against the Eldar. Other than helping the Imperium lose hard again that is.
Maybe the Guard know they're in an Imperial Armour book, and thus have resigned themselves to the fact that it is simply impossible for the Imperium to ever win in those books. Therefore, operating under this assumption, and the fact that they're in a bitter and cold wasteland, they decided to make a MASSIVE flame tank to make their final moments a bit warmer.
Why would we get this in IA11?
Krieg aren't involved with IA11, and the Valdor/Malcador are Krieg "signature" vehicles.
IA11 is all about Elysia/Cadians and Space Wolves.
But you know, there was an inkling of another Imperial Armour: Apocalypse volume where this would fit right in.
Ice World + Huge Flame Tank = Logical Correlation.
Kanluwen wrote:Krieg aren't involved with IA11, and the Valdor/Malcador are Krieg "signature" vehicles.
From what I recall, the Malcador was present in IA5, 6 and 7 because Vraks was a world where tons and tons of weapons of war were stored, and part of that store was legions of ancient proto-Leman Russes, also known as the Malcador. They're not more signature to the Kriegers than the Chimera. The Kriegers use tanks sparringly. The Malcador isn't 'their' tank. it is 'a' tank that they have used, but not 'signature'.
Ice World + Huge Flame Tank = Logical Correlation.
Yes, what with it falling through the ice and all
Kanluwen wrote:Krieg aren't involved with IA11, and the Valdor/Malcador are Krieg "signature" vehicles.
From what I recall, the Malcador was present in IA5, 6 and 7 because Vraks was a world where tons and tons of weapons of war were stored, and part of that store was legions of ancient proto-Leman Russes, also known as the Malcador. They're not more signature to the Kriegers than the Chimera. The Kriegers use tanks sparringly. The Malcador isn't 'their' tank. it is 'a' tank that they have used, but not 'signature'.
It was present, and originally deployed by the traitors. As the War on Vraks progressed, Krieg captured several depots where they were mothballed in storage and they started deploying them en masse, as "meat shields" for the more advanced Leman Russ.
SilverMK2 wrote:What about its design is stupid? I think it is a pretty cool design.
Here's my beef: it looks like someone at FW just took a 3-upped flamer and said, hey, let's put this on a Valdor chassis. Aside from the weapon needing to be recognizable as a flamer, what purpose does having the gun look like that have? Do the pilot lights for it need to be as big as a normal SM flamer? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. I mean, not to delve too deeply into the "realism" aspect, but real life flame tanks just have the flames come out the end of a barrel - they look pretty much like any other tank. This just looks like one of the FW designer was given the task of coming up with a medium heavy flame tank and he sat around checking FB and reading wikipedia entries until a week before the project was due. Then in the last week, he said, "AH HA! I'll take a 3-up flamer and mount it on a Valdor. Done!"
I have the same complaint. It looks a bit silly. Why waste space for a longer barrel? Extra rifling in the barrel won't a difference. The fuel looks wee in comparison.
"One shot... aaaaand we're done here. Have a great battle guys, we'll be back tomorrow to shoot again!"
Forge world usually seems much better at avoiding strapping big guns on a chassis purely because they can, but this time I think it's a fail.
Looks interesting.. I hope this tank has the warhound rules for the inferno gun, IE template + 18". Generally thats how they do titans, but its not a titan.. so we'll see
If thats the case it'll be pretty sweet!.. Otherwise it'll be 120$ tank that never fires its gun..ever
I think it's both ridiculous and awful in equal measure. The volume in it's barrels is almost the same as the volume in its storage tank, there are fluid cables exposed on the front of the tank that are also visible from the side, the stupid little fuel holder could never hold enough to meaningfully provide for a weapon that needlessly large and for some reason they decided to make the non functioning oversized tip of the gun scaled to match the non functioning oversized barrel which makes it looks like a 40x scale terminator flamer on one of the worst tank designs forge world has.
ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's both ridiculous and awful in equal measure. The volume in it's barrels is almost the same as the volume in its storage tank, there are fluid cables exposed on the front of the tank that are also visible from the side, the stupid little fuel holder could never hold enough to meaningfully provide for a weapon that needlessly large and for some reason they decided to make the non functioning oversized tip of the gun scaled to match the non functioning oversized barrel which makes it looks like a 40x scale terminator flamer on one of the worst tank designs forge world has.
how is it the worst? personally i like the marcharius and malacor
ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's both ridiculous and awful in equal measure. The volume in it's barrels is almost the same as the volume in its storage tank, there are fluid cables exposed on the front of the tank that are also visible from the side, the stupid little fuel holder could never hold enough to meaningfully provide for a weapon that needlessly large and for some reason they decided to make the non functioning oversized tip of the gun scaled to match the non functioning oversized barrel which makes it looks like a 40x scale terminator flamer on one of the worst tank designs forge world has.
how is it the worst? personally i like the marcharius and malacor
From a technical standpoint it does absolutely everything wrong that a tank should do. It's lifted directly from WW1 english tanks, but even those were better designed and they were terrible. The tracks alone make me want to cringe.
I'm sure the trailer has a special rule that makes it extra vulnerable for the sake of fluffy things. Ooh, maybe they'll give it the old Hellhound rules, where all glancing hits auto-pen!
endtransmission wrote:As a model, it's just jumped to just under the vulkan megabolter Macharius on my "to buy" list as it'll be nice against Arakasi's Orks
Hey!
nosferatu1001 wrote:endtransmission - you need 2, trust me
Do I sense a conspiracy?
Wayfarer wrote:Please tell me I'm not alone in my immediate thought of Skorcha!" I mean, come on. It looks pretty ork inspired you have to admit.
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think we'll get rules in IA11, and no test rules before then. It really doesn't matter though guys - the Malcador is a piece of junk, and every tank based on its profile is a piece of junk as well. This will not be a good tank, it will be like all the other FW superheavies - cool to look at, not worth a damn in-game. I mean really... just look at the Macharius. All those points for an extra Battlecannon? Two Russes will be better than it.
I'm waiting with great interest to see how FW will feth this one up. I suspect it will cost about 600 points, have some kind of "runs out of fuel" special rule and another one to reflect its extreme vulnerability to antitank fire (as if the Malcador chassis wasn't fragile enough)
Maybe we should convert it into an Armoured tea carrier, swap out the front flamer nozzle of a little tap, maybe 2 actually (one for milk).
All units nearby get 'Fearless' and 'gets hot' (to simulate spillage in a combat environment)?
Death By Monkeys wrote:Here's my beef: it looks like someone at FW just took a 3-upped flamer and said, hey, let's put this on a Valdor chassis. Aside from the weapon needing to be recognizable as a flamer, what purpose does having the gun look like that have? Do the pilot lights for it need to be as big as a normal SM flamer? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. I mean, not to delve too deeply into the "realism" aspect, but real life flame tanks just have the flames come out the end of a barrel - they look pretty much like any other tank. This just looks like one of the FW designer was given the task of coming up with a medium heavy flame tank and he sat around checking FB and reading wikipedia entries until a week before the project was due. Then in the last week, he said, "AH HA! I'll take a 3-up flamer and mount it on a Valdor. Done!"
The thing is, with the design aesthetic that GW use, if it's supposed to be some sort of giant flamer, it should look like a giant flamer. Whether or not it makes sense in the real world, we learn to recognise the weapons in the game from those little design keys. The 'pilot lights' hanging off the front are what differentiates a flamer from a melta weapon. The angled flash-suppressor-esque piece on the tip of las-weapons is how we tell them apart from auto-weapons. And so on.
HiveFleet wrote:I wonder what makes it more powerful than a regular flamer? The fuel? I wouldve thought flame by another other source is still flame in the end.
Different chemicals burn at different temperatures. And in GW-land, 'bigger' automatically means 'more powerful'... well, except for when it doesn't, like with tank-mounted autocannons being twice the size of infantry versions, but doing exactly the same thing.
Well both of those were Dreadnought specific, and fluffed as technological advancements of Dreadnought-mounted weapons rather than them just being 'bigger' weapons.
Given the relative fragility of Dreadnoughts, and the lack of any difference (other than move and fire, I suppose), it isn't a wonder I don't field them much anymore - though I'd like to, as they are one of the cooler elements of a Space Marine force.
I'm terribly disappointed by this. I think the tank itself is fine (frankly, over-proportioned weapons are sorta how 40krolls) but I hate the trailer. I hate how it looks (which is, stupid), and I hate that it exists. Absolutely no reason this thing couldn't have tanks mounted on the rear like a baneblade, rather then dangling junk-like from the rear.
That's what it reminds me of - those plastic scrotums you can buy for trucks that many states outlawed a few years ago. rightly so.
I do miss the days of vehicle mounted weapons doing 'more' than their infantry held counterparts.
Missile launchers shooting more than one missile, the multi-melta being able to fire as a heavy flamer... ah, the good ol' days!
It continuously bugs me that the autocanon on a predator is the same as a guard infantry autocanon despite having three times the barrel width and twice the length.
Yeah it probably was, but look at the churchhills trailer size compaired to the barrel and then look at the malcador's barrel size/trailer length. The malcadors only looks like it could hold 1 shot
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The concept of the trailer is based on this maybe?
Yes, but they screwed it up. The crocodile's add-on fuel tank was about half the volume of the entire vehicle towing it. With that vehicle there was an actual reason for giving it a trailer (because it was too big to fit in the tank), not just because they were aping another, better, vehicle.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The concept of the trailer is based on this maybe?
Yes, but they screwed it up. The crocodile's add-on fuel tank was about half the volume of the entire vehicle towing it. With that vehicle there was an actual reason for giving it a trailer (because it was too big to fit in the tank), not just because they were aping another, better, vehicle.
The Crocodile's add-on fuel tank was also designed to last it for an entire campaign, and fueled an infantry sized weapon that, at best, would kill or suppress a few men in a bunker.
Oh, also?
The add-on fuel tank was partly a psychological comfort for the crews of the Crocodiles because of how easy it was for German weaponry to knock out Shermans. The things were already called "Tommy Cookers" and "Ronsons" for a reason, nobody in their right mind would have gotten into a flamethrower tank that was well-known for cooking the crew alive.
This is an ad hoc weapon likely built in the field, and then deployed in a dire situation. That's how the Thunderer came about after all.
Khorne Flakes wrote:But it still does look like a water purification vehicle of some sort rofl
No it doesn't. A water purification vehicle would be dumb to use such a small tank and have any form of weapon on it.
There used to be a trailer that had this on it, to be attached to an Atlas Transporter:
.
That is the size of a water tank you'd see for even a small scale campaign, and it wouldn't be on the frontlines unless an enemy specifically was attacking the area it was behind the lines at.
FM Ninja 048 wrote:Yeah it probably was, but look at the churchhills trailer size compaired to the barrel and then look at the malcador's barrel size/trailer length. The malcadors only looks like it could hold 1 shot
in the far future, they are able to compress fuel into a smaller jug.
plus look at the fuel tank on the back of the titans gun. it seems about the right size
kenshin620 wrote:Look its 40k, its suppose to look silly and out of scale
That's a stupid argument. Even if 40k is supposed to look out of scale, it's supposed to look out of scale in a certain way. The undersized trailer is the wrong kind of out of scale.
Oh, also?
The add-on fuel tank was partly a psychological comfort for the crews of the Crocodiles because of how easy it was for German weaponry to knock out Shermans. The things were already called "Tommy Cookers" and "Ronsons" for a reason, nobody in their right mind would have gotten into a flamethrower tank that was well-known for cooking the crew alive.
The add on fuel tank was behind it because it would be prohibitively expensive to attempt a massive retrofit of an existing vehicle frame to allow for mass liquid storage inside of the vehicle. It would end up being an entirely different vehicle, it was towed behind specifically because it wasn't an entirely different vehicle. It had too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote:
kenshin620 wrote:Look its 40k, its suppose to look silly and out of scale
That's a stupid argument. Even if 40k is supposed to look out of scale, it's supposed to look out of scale in a certain way. The undersized trailer is the wrong kind of out of scale.
It wouldn't be so bad if the flamer wasn't three times the size it should be as an oversized 40k gun. It's ludicrously big. It's dumb.
Try CLASSIC TOY SOLDIERS.COM, who do a nice 1/32 Churchill Crocodile for a mere $12.95. Against FW prices, you could field about 4 squadrons at that price.
IG GENERAL wrote:Try CLASSIC TOY SOLDIERS.COM, who do a nice 1/32 Churchill Crocodile for a mere $12.95. Against FW prices, you could field about 4 squadrons at that price.
No pic, as for some reason it won't upload :(
Whoah. I just checked that site out. Those are quite decent prices for vehicles. If you're not looking for a GW-official army, that'd be a nice cheap place to get chassis to start conversions from. And guns, too.
1/32nd is a little large for 40K, isn't it? 28mm is about 1/48th, iirc?
Anyways, back on-topic: Ridiculously large gun is ridiculously large. It's 40K, whatever. The trailer, fixed gun etc. are all about the historical nod, not about making a killer unit. That's FW for you, and I for one appreciate it. Armies went to war with the gear they had, and only occasionally with the gear they wanted. Things were bodged together even on the national production scale. In this way the object has a narrative inherent in it. that's the brilliance of FW and their books- telling a story, not just making the 40K toys that we want.
Savnock wrote:1/32nd is a little large for 40K, isn't it? 28mm is about 1/48th, iirc?
Depends on the tank, and on what you want it to represent.
1:48 is often a little small, hull-wise, and all of the fittings are too small due to 40K's exagerated proportions. A 1:48 Sherman is a good length and height, but a little narrow, to serve as a Leman Russ stand-in. A 1:48 m113 is a little small for a rhino, although the 1:32 version is far too large.
For tanks to represnet larger 40K vehicles, 1:32 is the way to go.
It does like a Valdor where they ripped out the tank gun and just stuck a really big flamethrower in its place....I'm actually quite pleased with this model. Looks very nice. Very over the top. Very Imperial.
.