17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Eh. I didn't mind Matt ward, his lore wasn't horrible, some parts of his lore was pretty boring in some places. But overall it was passable.
I think most books that have come out from black library have been pretty good.
Only the War of the Beast would i consider pretty bad... in terms of lore. None of the lore has degraded, but currently it is a bit disjointed with the introduction of the Indomitius Era. As we still don't know the date, or what happened, the lore for this new era has been relatively sparse and small. The gathering storm effects are not as large of a consequence as it should've been as some would say.
Honestly I just want more lore written about the now and the crusade that just happened. And less about the stupid crap of the Horus Heresy or M34 or some random date. We want to know about the now.
50012
Post by: Crimson
The different ranks of Librarians still exist in the fluff, but haven't had any meaning in the game for the long time. This could be a chance to do something with that. For example Codiciers (the lowest rank) could operate in squads instead of being characters.
While my poor eldar are left behind with 3rd edition Phoenix Lords and Aspect Warriors.
Perfectly fair. I too wish they would do something with the Eldar. Plastic aspects is the obvious thing, and I'd really would love if they updated the Phoenix Lords into epic primarch-style centrepiece models. And regardless of what one thinks of Ynnead, it is kinda weird how they introduced this new thing, but have not done anything with it. It's still just those three characters.
No basic concept hasn't changed marines, they are just taller. But they have become ultra specialized which is annoying, as marines are supposed to be generalists.
Well, most marine squads were always specialised. That's why we have Devastators, Assault Marines etc instead of everybody just being a Tactical. Also, certainly Intercessors are generalists. They can equip three different sorts of guns for different purposes, they have a versatile grenade launcer and they're decent in close combat, the sergeant being able to equip various melee weapons. Sure, maybe not as flexible as Tactical, but the basic idea is the same.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
 Crimson wrote:
Well, most marine squads were always specialised. That's why we have Devastators, Assault Marines etc instead of everybody just being a Tactical. Also, certainly Intercessors are generalists. They can equip three different sorts of guns for different purposes, they have a versatile grenade launcer and they're decent in close combat, the sergeant being able to equip various melee weapons. Sure, maybe not as flexible as Tactical, but the basic idea is the same.
Compared to Eldar, Marines were way more generalist. Primaris wind up feeling Eldarish because of their limited options. Even "specialist" Squads like Devastators still carry Boltguns, and their Heavy Weapons are quite varied.
The most specialized classic squad is Assault Terminators, and yeah they're pretty niche. Otherwise, options abound. Sternguard are basically Tacticals+1, and Terminators are basically Tacticals+2. The same generalist theory applies.
Intercessors actually do OK againt armor with Stalker Bolt Rifles, but they give up a significant amount of anti-infantry for it. 4-5 Stalkers come out like a Lascannon vs. T7 3+. T8 gets rough for them though.
Edit: The Stalker Bolt Rifle thing is more or less a function of 8th edition. A Bolt Rifle is better than a Krak Grenade against T7 because they have the same to-wound, but the Rifle has a -2 AP instead of -1. It's weird.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I mean assault marines can have flamers, can have jump packs, or not have jump packs, devastators can have any heavy weapons, and bolter marines.
Tactical squads can have any special weapon or heavy weapon.
Terminator Squads can have Assault Cannons, Cyclonic Missiles, or Heavy Flamer. Assault Terminators can use lightning claws or thunder hammers, but as someone said that is the most radically 'specialized' space marine unit because they are supposed to be super elites that is only their job is to get into combat.
Dreadnoughts have like twelve options.
Sternguard and Vanguard have various options and can specailize in various forms of combat.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Assault Terminators are the unit with the most specific job title. "Storm these cramped hallways!" Or "Knock out the foot of this Titan". Not that anyone equips them with Lightning Claws, but they can do a number on hordes.
Huh. . . With the new book, +1 to hit Strat, 10 Terminators with LC, 41 attacks on the charge does, .83x.75x.83=21.1 MEQ dead. With reroll 1's to hit and Assault Doctrine 29.5 MEQ dead. Dang.
Fight twice for yuks and they can kill 60 MEQ in a turn. I mean it'd never happen but Jeebus.
Actually UM Thunder Hammer Terminators can one shot a Knight now, easy. Fight twice and they can kill 2 in a round. Bloody hell. Takes 6CP, but they dont need aura support.
105466
Post by: fraser1191
 Insectum7 wrote:Assault Terminators are the unit with the most specific job title. "Storm these cramped hallways!" Or "Knock out the foot of this Titan". Not that anyone equips them with Lightning Claws, but they can do a number on hordes.
Huh. . . With the new book, +1 to hit Strat, 10 Terminators with LC, 41 attacks on the charge does, .83x.75x.83=21.1 MEQ dead. With reroll 1's to hit and Assault Doctrine 29.5 MEQ dead. Dang.
Fight twice for yuks and they can kill 60 MEQ in a turn. I mean it'd never happen but Jeebus.
Whoops there goes your 30 ork blob
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Normal Terminators can one shot a Gallant with 3CP. Hot damn.
1 CP +1 to hit
1 CP reroll 1's. UM strat
1 CP Assault Doctrine on the unit. UM strat
31 attacks hitting on 3s rerolling 1s, 4+ to wound , -4 AP, average 2 damage = 24 wounds against T8 3+.
Aargh, scratch that. The stupid sargent Power Sword, haha.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I don't know, I've found this thread to be informative and stimulating. Even if I don't agree with some of the posters, it's good to talk it out at the least.
The only wrong opinion really is anyone claiming their opinion is fact, or they speak for the majority of people or saying you don't have a right to dislike something, or you can't love it.
Only one person I have seen has stated anything about all of that.
The rest of us are just voicing our issues as honestly, many of us have put decades into this game and it is something we feel strongly about why wouldn't we have feelings about all this ?
118486
Post by: Andykp
 Asherian Command wrote:I mean assault marines can have flamers, can have jump packs, or not have jump packs, devastators can have any heavy weapons, and bolter marines.
Tactical squads can have any special weapon or heavy weapon.
Terminator Squads can have Assault Cannons, Cyclonic Missiles, or Heavy Flamer. Assault Terminators can use lightning claws or thunder hammers, but as someone said that is the most radically 'specialized' space marine unit because they are supposed to be super elites that is only their job is to get into combat.
Dreadnoughts have like twelve options.
Sternguard and Vanguard have various options and can specailize in various forms of combat.
About that meme, that pattern only looks right because they have ignored the extremis chamber release.. leave that out and it looks like they are following the exact model but but it in and it looks less like a pattern. Personally, vanguard marines fit perfectly with my fluff for my chapter but a psi ops Uber witch type wouldn’t at all., but I think it could be a cool release still if it happened. I just wouldn’t use it in my chapter. Maybe start it as a force from another chapter.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
More than likely the next big release for the Primaris is going to be Gravis based (and maybe we'll see the Suppressors get a kit next codex update in 2021 or so).
I'll be honest: as excited as I was to get the updated codex the staggered release schedule with everything all over the place has lead to me finally tossing my hands up at it and deciding to focus my energy elsewhere for a while. I can't hold my breath forever waiting for GW to get around to releasing the stuff I'm interested in after all.
118486
Post by: Andykp
 ClockworkZion wrote:More than likely the next big release for the Primaris is going to be Gravis based (and maybe we'll see the Suppressors get a kit next codex update in 2021 or so).
I'll be honest: as excited as I was to get the updated codex the staggered release schedule with everything all over the place has lead to me finally tossing my hands up at it and deciding to focus my energy elsewhere for a while. I can't hold my breath forever waiting for GW to get around to releasing the stuff I'm interested in after all.
I’ll be honest I’m pleased with the release schedule, keeping ahead of things painting wise but then they are releasing the stuff I’m interested in now so makes it a bit easier. Not much interest in gravis. Looking forward to seeing chapter specific releases even though I don’t play them.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Andykp wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:More than likely the next big release for the Primaris is going to be Gravis based (and maybe we'll see the Suppressors get a kit next codex update in 2021 or so).
I'll be honest: as excited as I was to get the updated codex the staggered release schedule with everything all over the place has lead to me finally tossing my hands up at it and deciding to focus my energy elsewhere for a while. I can't hold my breath forever waiting for GW to get around to releasing the stuff I'm interested in after all.
I’ll be honest I’m pleased with the release schedule, keeping ahead of things painting wise but then they are releasing the stuff I’m interested in now so makes it a bit easier. Not much interest in gravis. Looking forward to seeing chapter specific releases even though I don’t play them.
I keep falling back into hobby paralysis with the Primaris since I don't know what I want for my Fists and I get that niggling feeling if I go in on X then Y will come out which will fit the army even better.
Them being so lopsided right now isn't helping much either.
118486
Post by: Andykp
Home brew chapter helps but the lopsided thing works for me too, not competitive and have always wanted to play marines more like mobile gun line. Would like some more antitank infantry though. Thought of adding devastators using primaris bodies but wouldn’t work fluff wise. Couldn’t explain the less wounds and attacks.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
At the risk of sounding like an a**. . .It sounds a lot like you want squads that can mix in some decent anti-tank options, huh?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Insectum7 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an a**. . .It sounds a lot like you want squads that can mix in some decent anti-tank options, huh?
I want chunky boys and breacher shields for my Imperial Fists actually.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
ClockworkZion wrote: Insectum7 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an a**. . .It sounds a lot like you want squads that can mix in some decent anti-tank options, huh?
I want chunky boys and breacher shields for my Imperial Fists actually.
TH/ SS Terminators.
118486
Post by: Andykp
Insectum7 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an a**. . .It sounds a lot like you want squads that can mix in some decent anti-tank options, huh?
It would be nice, I think the primaris line is missing that. Don’t mind if it’s a mix or all the same but the old marines are so ugly couldn’t do it. Never said primaris range was perfect, just that it’s clearly space marine.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Insectum7 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Insectum7 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an a**. . .It sounds a lot like you want squads that can mix in some decent anti-tank options, huh?
I want chunky boys and breacher shields for my Imperial Fists actually.
TH/ SS Terminators.
Maybe TH/ SS Gravis.
I know I can mix the old and new stuff but honestly the new models are more fun to build and paint because of the large models make it easier to paint the details, while leaving more room for freehand, decals or sculpting custom stuff onto the models.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
I thought the most Imperial Fist thing ever was getting bailed out by the Ultramarines? *flees!* 
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
I thought the most Imperial Fist thing ever was getting bailed out by the Ultramarines? *flees!*
You mean the Smurfs who failed to stand up to the Beast?
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
I thought the most Imperial Fist thing ever was getting bailed out by the Ultramarines? *flees!*
You mean the Smurfs who failed to stand up to the Beast?
Ohh I'm sorry what first founding chapter was killed off to a man by the Beast?
84364
Post by: pm713
BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
I thought the most Imperial Fist thing ever was getting bailed out by the Ultramarines? *flees!*
You mean the Smurfs who failed to stand up to the Beast?
Ohh I'm sorry what first founding chapter was killed off to a man by the Beast?
Who got eaten by bugs?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
I thought the most Imperial Fist thing ever was getting bailed out by the Ultramarines? *flees!*
You mean the Smurfs who failed to stand up to the Beast?
Ohh I'm sorry what first founding chapter was killed off to a man by the Beast?
The only one with the stones to show up.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Brwacher squads could be fun. Maybe A storm shield as a "Cawl pattern" super shot gun
Even a cut down breacher pattern auto bolt rifle would be nice. I just want Primaris breachers because a walking wall of shields working as a living fortress advancing on the enemy is basically the most Imperial Fist thing ever.
I thought the most Imperial Fist thing ever was getting bailed out by the Ultramarines? *flees!*
You mean the Smurfs who failed to stand up to the Beast?
Ohh I'm sorry what first founding chapter was killed off to a man by the Beast?
The only one with the stones to show up.
except they wheren't even fighting the Orks in that deployment. they where off on some incidental mission to appease terran politicans
edit: for what it's worth I do like the Imperial Fists. and they're proably my second favorite first founding codex chapter. this is all in good fun on my part
105713
Post by: Insectum7
ClockworkZion wrote: Insectum7 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Insectum7 wrote:At the risk of sounding like an a**. . .It sounds a lot like you want squads that can mix in some decent anti-tank options, huh?
I want chunky boys and breacher shields for my Imperial Fists actually.
TH/ SS Terminators.
Maybe TH/ SS Gravis.
I know I can mix the old and new stuff but honestly the new models are more fun to build and paint because of the large models make it easier to paint the details, while leaving more room for freehand, decals or sculpting custom stuff onto the models.
Just use the statline and convert some Intercessors with Storm shields and Thunder Hammers. You got your 2A and 2A to match the Primaris Statline. He'll just have "Breacher Armor" with a 2+, Shield for 3++, and the Hammer.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Insectum7 wrote:
Just use the statline and convert some Intercessors with Storm shields and Thunder Hammers. You got your 2A and 2A to match the Primaris Statline. He'll just have "Breacher Armor" with a 2+, Shield for 3++, and the Hammer.
That's actually pretty neat idea!
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Do it. It'd look cool.
Or just buy a squad of Stormcast Liberators, and you can pretend they're Blood Angles 
90846
Post by: Cothonian
RevlidRas wrote:I was actually a big fan of the new Primaris models when they first hit. They looked lovely, they gave me a bigger canvas to paint on, and they were a properly imposing semi-truescale update of the classic Tactical Marines.
...
In terms of silhouetting, classic Marines were... Marines. A Tactical Marine, an Assault Marine, and a Devastator Marine all had the same armour, the same proportions, the same gear. So did your Marine characters, from Apothecaries to Captains. They also had the same basic loadout: a boltgun was a boltgun, a bolt pistol was a bolt pistol. This meant that they all shared the same silhouette, which unified the "look" of the army even from a distance; all your blobs of infantry were clearly of a type. This also meant that deviations from that silhouette really stood out; the Librarian's looming hood or the Apothecary's bulky surgery-arm popped out at a glance, as did the Assault Marine's jump pack. The broad standardization of the army helped emphasize its differences. The only full units who totally broke the general Marine mould were Scouts and Terminators, which acted as a clear signal that the latter were really important and tough and the former were small, weak, and sneaky. That effect also applied to special weapons; when everyone else had boltguns, the guy with the melta, plasma, missile launcher, heavy bolter etc really stood out and signaled what that model (and its associated unit) was for.
Primaris Marines inherently damage this silhouetting, because they introduce a new type of Marine. Scouts and Terminators are both pretty rare, specialized units (or are intended to be), and their different silhouettes help them stand out as such, but with Primaris you now have four kinds of Marine "look". The lightly/heavily armoured Scout/Terminator, the Space Marine, and the Primaris. And the Vanguard Primaris, who has its own torso/legs/helmet. And the Aggressor, who is a new kind of big bulky silhouette entirely. And the Suppressor, who's a weird half-way house between Inceptor and Primaris silhouettes. And Centurion, who it's not strictly fair to lump in with Primaris, but I'm going to do it anyway because I'm making a point. And the wildly different and obvious special weapons have been largely boiled down to small adjustments to existing guns (both aesthetically and mechanically); does your boltgun have a scope, in which case this squad is static long-ranged gunners, or does it have an extra magazine, in which case this squad is fast-moving anti-infantry? I have yet to meet anyone who can tell different Hellblaster guns apart at a glance. Each unit looks unique, which makes the army seem less unified, and within each unit they all look the same, making it harder to distinguish roles. It's the worst of both worlds.
...
It feels like a lot of the new Primaris units aren't part of a unified plan to update the army's look with a new set of templates and roles, but are just... thrown out of a bucket of ideas. What if this unit had sort-of-Terminator-armour-but-not-really? What if this unit flew and had big guns? What if this other unit flew and had big guns but was sort of different somehow? What if this unit did recon and special ops and sabotage? What if this other unit also did recon and special ops and sabotage, but had smoke grenades and radio packs? What if this third unit also did recon and special ops and sabotage, but had giant mines? There's no templating or standardization, which makes the army feel less like an army and more like a collection of seasonal action figures: Winter Storm Batman, Battle Damage Batman, Disco Fight Batman, etc.
The sections above resonate with me most.
Especially the "what if we bolted this onto that?" As absurd as it may sound, a lot of the Primaris equipment looks a lot more cartoonish compared to it's predecessors. To me at least, the old Landraiders looks sleek and mean compared to the new Repulsors. Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.
Lastly, I kind of miss the far more gothic feel of the old marines designs. The old marines look like they have 10,000 years of pointless rituals stacked upon procedures who's purpose has been long lost to time (which they do.) The primaris lose all of that. Granted, it's more tactically efficient (since when would having a purity seal flapping around in your face help the situation?), but it lacks the esoteric feel of 40k.
110118
Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli
 Cothonian wrote:
Especially the "what if we bolted this onto that?" As absurd as it may sound, a lot of the Primaris equipment looks a lot more cartoonish compared to it's predecessors. To me at least, the old Landraiders looks sleek and mean compared to the new Repulsors. Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.
Lastly, I kind of miss the far more gothic feel of the old marines designs. The old marines look like they have 10,000 years of pointless rituals stacked upon procedures who's purpose has been long lost to time (which they do.) The primaris lose all of that. Granted, it's more tactically efficient (since when would having a purity seal flapping around in your face help the situation?), but it lacks the esoteric feel of 40k.
Primaris look more cartoonish!?! That is certainly a new one.
The land raider has no suspension or clearance and sponsons are some of the worst places you could actually stick anti-armor weapons since you have to expose at least half you hull to shoot or be in an urban-type environment to shoot around corners which enemy armor is one of your least concerns unless you have very good infantry support (which probably should be tackling that enemy armor anyways since dense urban areas usually mean bad times for armor.
I can sort of agree with repulsors having too many weapons. Well, one too many weapons. WWII and beyond tanks often have a main gun, co-axial gun, hull mounted gun, pintle mounted gun. I don't think it is too far a stretch to include some anti-infantry assault weapons like the munition boxes and side/rear guns. The only one that doesn't really work for me is the rear anti-air weapon which less that it is a bad idea and more that it is a little dinky to really pose a threat to supersonic aircraft and you already have the pintle for close attack aircraft.
I find it strange, to the point it feels almost disingenuous, that you call the repulsor cartoonish while thinking almost any aspect of the land raider makes any kind of more sense. I like both models somewhat (I don't really like much of any 40k vehicle to be honest). However, both are pretty ridiculous in their own ways. Thing that probably bothers me the most about the repulsor is the fact there is not nearly enough space dedicated to an engine. I mean the land raider has that issue too but at least it tried to cordon off a little space to show that is where the engine is.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.
... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!
really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.
also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
BrianDavion wrote:Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.
... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?! really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts. also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.
The Land Raider has more of a basis in reality and is more 'familiar' compared to the repulsor. Is what I think he means. I mean there was a tank in our reality the land raider is based on, the world war 1 tanks. But the problem is that no tank in our reality has that many stupid stuff on it. It is usually one main gun, and if you have more its on top of the turret. And then we have what nine weapons on repulsor? On the repulsor executioner 11 weapons? We are at the point of ridiculousness the vehicle looks overburdened with weapon systems. I am sorry its not realistic, its no 'cool' it looks like an ork vehicle in space marine form. Its dumb and unnecessary. All they have to do is invent something and put sponsons on it to fit the 40k universe, no sponsons creates this effect of "what why?" Yes it makes sense in our world but not in 40k its far too modern, but then its not. Its rally wierd dichotomy that it has too many weapons, and it has the issue of being flat out mess of a model. There is too much going on.
50012
Post by: Crimson
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Thing that probably bothers me the most about the repulsor is the fact there is not nearly enough space dedicated to an engine.
There is actually pretty decent blocks dedicated to the engines both sides at the aft section of the vehicle. And considering that it is a weird scifi anti-grav tank is is kinda hard to know how large engine it 'should' have.
110118
Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli
Crimson wrote: Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Thing that probably bothers me the most about the repulsor is the fact there is not nearly enough space dedicated to an engine.
There is actually pretty decent blocks dedicated to the engines both sides at the aft section of the vehicle. And considering that it is a weird scifi anti-grav tank is is kinda hard to know how large engine it 'should' have.
You are probably right, the compartments feel really small to me since I have seen a fair number of real tank engine compartments.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
BrianDavion wrote:Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.
... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!
really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.
also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.
It's not about the placement of weapons. It's about the execution of the placement of weapons. Imo the Land Raiders guns look like they belong on the vehicle. The Repulsor guns look more slapped on and less integrated with the aesthetics.
50012
Post by: Crimson
I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Crimson wrote:I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.
Another issue with primaris kits lack of customization!
110118
Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli
Crimson wrote:I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.
Agreed.
118486
Post by: Andykp
Asherian Command wrote: Crimson wrote:I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.
Another issue with primaris kits lack of customization!
That’s a rules problem not kit one. The kits have tons of customisation opportunities. The rules don’t. I play in a very chilled group so not too much of an issue, model it and it good to go.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Insectum7 wrote:BrianDavion wrote:Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.
... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!
really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.
also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.
It's not about the placement of weapons. It's about the execution of the placement of weapons. Imo the Land Raiders guns look like they belong on the vehicle. The Repulsor guns look more slapped on and less integrated with the aesthetics.
except for the most part you're wrong, every weapon on the land raider looks slapped on.
the forward mounted twin heavy bolter? slapped on, thge sponson weapons. slapped on. all the weapons on the repulsor look pretty intergrated into the hull. I agree the frag launchers on the turret look stupid (I just went with autolaunchers as honestly I wanted to keep costs down anyway) but the rest of the weapons are all intergrated with the hull. they don't look like something that could have been added on after. unlike the land raider. (and the land raiders design that way makes sense TBH, it's not a fighting vehicle, it's an explorer vehicle whose STC was used to make a make shift tank)
105713
Post by: Insectum7
@BrianDavion 100% disagree.
The Heavy Bolter is well integrated into the form, it's armored shell being flush with the hull.
I get what you're saying about the Sponsons, but their 'open' design does a great job of not interfering with the slab of the side armor, while looking functional, exotic and aggressive.
Imo the Repulsor is aptly named.
118988
Post by: CapRichard
I never though I would actually read that the land raider frame + weapons makes sense.
What a wonderful place is the world.
It's like if Dwan of War doesn't exist. Just look at how silly many units move in that game and what changes to proportions they had to make just to have some of them do a locomotion cycle correctly, like the boxes dread. The land raider trying to move and shoot at stuff it's pretty amusing too.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
CapRichard wrote:I never though I would actually read that the land raider frame + weapons makes sense.
What a wonderful place is the world.
It's like if Dwan of War doesn't exist. Just look at how silly many units move in that game and what changes to proportions they had to make just to have some of them do a locomotion cycle correctly, like the boxes dread. The land raider trying to move and shoot at stuff it's pretty amusing too.
Animation in DOW is exaggerated for effect, the Dreads don't have to actually move in such an exaggerated way. As for the Land Raider, the ground bows and makes way for the glorious Astartes chariot.
118988
Post by: CapRichard
No, the dev stated in an interview that they had to change its legs because the original design could not move in any fashion.
As for the land raider, yeah, seeing the laser beam actually curve to hit the target because the gun emplacement makes no sense when trying to hit something put in front of the it is exaggerated for effect. It just doesn't work as a weapon platform. Even when targeting just stuff at the sides it distributes power very inefficiently. It is a non combat vehicles with stuff bolted onto it.
The repulsor is an actual combat vehicle.
Come on.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
I think we've reached the climax of nonsense in this topic with people claiming that Primaris are more cartoonish than units like the Landraider.
I often joke about a subset of people who simply dislike new things, turns out it's not a joke.
The classic Astartes are far more cartoonish (in a 1980s kind of way) than any of the Primaris designs. The most cartoonish thing you can point a finger at in the Primaris line would probably be the Skull helmets of the Reivers, but you can only criticise them if you don't know the lore of 40k. Terror troops with skull helmets are a long established part of the lore, heck the Reivers now have the same rules as Night Lords legionnaires.
So to summarise the comedy of this topic:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design. Oh wait.
It's actually pretty funny that the hover tanks of the Primaris could at least function in a scifi setting, despite being more fantastical by virtue of the grav tech they employ.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.
The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.
And it looks the nutz.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Ishagu wrote:I think we've reached the climax of nonsense in this topic with people claiming that Primaris are more cartoonish than units like the Landraider.
I often joke about a subset of people who simply dislike new things, turns out it's not a joke.
The classic Astartes are far more cartoonish (in a 1980s kind of way) than any of the Primaris designs. The most cartoonish thing you can point a finger at in the Primaris line would probably be the Skull helmets of the Reivers, but you can only criticise them if you don't know the lore of 40k. Terror troops with skull helmets are a long established part of the lore, heck the Reivers now have the same rules as Night Lords legionnaires.
So to summarise the comedy of this topic:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design. Oh wait.
It's actually pretty funny that the hover tanks of the Primaris could at least function in a scifi setting, despite being more fantastical by virtue of the grav tech they employ.
Lets get real here. If we could army our soldiers in armor that can deflect .50 rounds and give them a jump pack with a 40 MM autocannon...we would. We wouldn't however drive around in giant tanks without suspension or go around trying to hit people with hammers. ESP when the average marine can probably flip over a car with their own strength. IMO - the primaris designs look a lot better than the secondis stuff. Heck their was even a huge movement to make truescale marines in the past and now...here you have it? Bunches of people complain. The new warsuit - just built it. It looks friggen awesome.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Ishagu wrote:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.
Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Insectum7 wrote:As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.
The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.
And it looks the nutz.
Love LR but sponsons are archiec tech that didn't even make it past the first 10 years of tank design. Turrets just make a lot more sense. It's part of the reason I like the new primaris tanks - they emulate real life tanks - they just hover. Which is cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Insectum7 wrote: Ishagu wrote:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.
Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.
Just take a look at an abarms or challanger tank. It looks a lot like a repulsor executioner. These are some of the most astetically pleasing tanks to look at IMO. Not liking something because it has "too many guns" is also pretty lame. The only thing I think is unreasonable with the new primaris designs is the new dreads roll cage...I am going to modify a glass canopy for mine out of plasticard. It looks amazing still though. It just doesn't make sense.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
I will actually agree that the new Walker is not my favourite looking Astartes model.
I have seen it in person and it does look nicer than the images, sometimes the kits are more pleasing in person when you see them as an actual 3D model, but it doesn't look as good as the Redemptor.
The Repulsor Executioner is probably the best looking Astartes tank after the various Sicarans, but it's more functional in it's design by a long shot.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
the repulsor looks an aweful lot like a Bradley IFV (to the poiint where I'd say that was the obvious inspiration for the design) the weapons are mostly sensably placed within the hull, with only the autolaunchers/autofrag launchers on the turret standing out as unnesscary. the stormbolters/frag launchers on the ides and rear makes 100% perfect sense as a weapon designed to cover infantry as it disembarks. the forward hull mounted twin heavy bolter or twin als canon allows it to put down heavy fire in front of it. and the turret mounted canon is ideal for killing infantry or light armor thats in it's way. you're welcome to dislike the repulsor, that it looks more modern then WW1/early 20s is a fair argument against it.but the rhino and it's relations are also much more modern looking then the land raider as well. but claiming the land raiders design makes more sense then the repulsor's is just silly
105713
Post by: Insectum7
 Xenomancers wrote: Insectum7 wrote:As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.
The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.
And it looks the nutz.
Love LR but sponsons are archiec tech that didn't even make it past the first 10 years of tank design. Turrets just make a lot more sense. It's part of the reason I like the new primaris tanks - they emulate real life tanks - they just hover. Which is cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Ishagu wrote:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.
Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.
Just take a look at an abarms or challanger tank. It looks a lot like a repulsor executioner. These are some of the most astetically pleasing tanks to look at IMO. Not liking something because it has "too many guns" is also pretty lame. The only thing I think is unreasonable with the new primaris designs is the new dreads roll cage...I am going to modify a glass canopy for mine out of plasticard. It looks amazing still though. It just doesn't make sense.
Right. I looked at the Repulsor and saw a floating Bradley that looks like a toy.
I get that the Repulsor has design elements of tanks that make sense. It just looks goofy, and not in a good way. Like a bobblehead Bradley. A caricature.
I don't like the Land Raider because it 'makes sense'. I like the Land Raider because it 'makes 40K sense.' It has a big door in the front, and looks like it's intended to ram into buildings and deposit marines. It looks great in some Blanchian illustration where it doesn't matter if it has trouble focusing it's firepower, because there are targets everywhere. It has weapons that DON'T look like real guns, while the Stubbers and Gatling Cannon look like 50Cals and a GAU 8, and the Executioner gun looks like a 120mm smoothbore.
I'll stick with my space-paneled WW1 battering ram with lasers.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Well as I stated previously the Replusor turret is great. The Repulsor Exterminator top turret needs to be like three times the size sorta like an abrams tank or else it just looks small in comparision sorta like how a predator annihilator has a large turret on the chasis which makes it look great.
Infact of all the space marine tanks the rhino chasis and the predator are probably the coolest looking tanks, they are small and thats their biggest issue.
But people on here keep saying : "Oh its old technology!"
In 40k its not every major battle tanks has one in the imperium except for the primaris stuff. Fellblades, baneblades etc are all main battleline tanks and they all have it.
If anything the predator tank should be twice the size it is. inbetween a land raider and a rhino. But right now its really small.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
^ I think if you measured it out you'd find that a Predator is actually quite big. As big as any modern MBT, in fact. Our brains have gotten used to the scale and exaggerated proportions of 40K that we don't really see it though. The height of the hull of a Abrams is not even 6 feet, and it's turret is about 8 feet. A Predator is about 14 feet high at it's turret if you look at a Space Marine next to it.
Land Raiders and the like are stupid-big. A Monolith is like a 5 story building floating around.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Arguing more or less silly I think is a fools errand. Most 40k stuff looks a bit daft if we're being honest with ourselves.
It's more or less picking the crazy we like and sticking with it.
Dark Eldar have jabbas sail barges for emperors sake. If it is supposed to make sense in the fluff or not, much of it is silly. The lack of suspension on imperial vehicles can be a bit odd at times to be sure. ( ala leman russ tanks of all kinds ).
I do go with the idea of the predator being one of the best looking tanks though. I mean auto cannon turret, with a pintle weapon and the right placement of smoke launchers using the auto cannon turret and that is about as close to a modern tank as we have in the game look wise.
Sponsons were always dated a look and I myself on starting thought " WTF " on looking at them. They are simply, imperial in nature however, more guns, better for us. Some things we just need to take as setting rule of cool.
Auto cannon predator though, best tank look, and it honestly makes the land raider and repulsor both look cartoony though they are all based off real world designs.
I'll give honorable mention for the core Rhino, and Chimera as the runners up both being near direct ports of real tanks, transport tanks that are still in service today.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
I actually think the best visual change to come out of Primaris is the seperation between their vehicles and those of the Imperial Guard.
I'm OK with sponsons on Guard vehicles. The whole army is a satire on WW1 trench and tank warfare in terms of theme and it does fit.
It didn't fit as well with Astartes, however. Now we have a more distinct look to the forces - one more themed to Science Fiction, the other a throwback to older methods of war.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
I think there's room for both, I like the new primaris stuff but I'd HATE to see the Land Raider and the rhino chassi tanks go away
111023
Post by: robbienw
SM vehicles are massively separate in look from Guard vehicles, making them float doesn't really make much difference.
120227
Post by: Karol
Ishagu wrote:I actually think the best visual change to come out of Primaris is the seperation between their vehicles and those of the Imperial Guard.
I'm OK with sponsons on Guard vehicles. The whole army is a satire on WW1 trench and tank warfare in terms of theme and it does fit.
It didn't fit as well with Astartes, however. Now we have a more distinct look to the forces - one more themed to Science Fiction, the other a throwback to older methods of war.
But non of the space marines vehicles look like anything from WWI, besides the land raider. Predators look like Panzer IIIs Fs for examples, and rhinos themselfs look like a ton of post WWII transport produced by NATO.
118988
Post by: CapRichard
Insectum7 wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Insectum7 wrote:As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.
The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.
And it looks the nutz.
Love LR but sponsons are archiec tech that didn't even make it past the first 10 years of tank design. Turrets just make a lot more sense. It's part of the reason I like the new primaris tanks - they emulate real life tanks - they just hover. Which is cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Ishagu wrote:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.
Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.
Just take a look at an abarms or challanger tank. It looks a lot like a repulsor executioner. These are some of the most astetically pleasing tanks to look at IMO. Not liking something because it has "too many guns" is also pretty lame. The only thing I think is unreasonable with the new primaris designs is the new dreads roll cage...I am going to modify a glass canopy for mine out of plasticard. It looks amazing still though. It just doesn't make sense.
Right. I looked at the Repulsor and saw a floating Bradley that looks like a toy.
I get that the Repulsor has design elements of tanks that make sense. It just looks goofy, and not in a good way. Like a bobblehead Bradley. A caricature.
I don't like the Land Raider because it 'makes sense'. I like the Land Raider because it 'makes 40K sense.' It has a big door in the front, and looks like it's intended to ram into buildings and deposit marines. It looks great in some Blanchian illustration where it doesn't matter if it has trouble focusing it's firepower, because there are targets everywhere. It has weapons that DON'T look like real guns, while the Stubbers and Gatling Cannon look like 50Cals and a GAU 8, and the Executioner gun looks like a 120mm smoothbore.
I'll stick with my space-paneled WW1 battering ram with lasers.
So you like the land raider because it's sillier. More cartoonist some would say
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Not exactly the same, but they are tracked vehicles with sponson weapons. The Landraider looks like it could be related to Chimeras/Leman Russ tanks.
The hovering, more high tech look of the Primaris vehicles sets them apart from from the rest of the Imperium whilst keeping the hard, blocky aesthetic.
And they don't impose on the FW Custodes tanks - those are sleek and elegant, even more far removed from the more mundane stuff.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Goofy concept executed seriously is greater than half-baked concept executed clumsily. The Land Raider nails it. The Repulsor misses it.
111023
Post by: robbienw
The Land Raider and Russ are nothing like each other stylistically. The primaris tanks are stylistically very similar to the Land Raider and Rhino, with the only difference being grav plates and stubbers.
The supposedly 'more hi-tech' look of the repulsor plates is balanced out by the distinctly low tech looking stubbers 
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Yeah. The stubbers are a testament to GW not breaking away from the theme of the setting. Primaris are true to the spirit of 40k.
120227
Post by: Karol
Ishagu wrote:Not exactly the same, but they are tracked vehicles with sponson weapons. The Landraider looks like it could be related to Chimeras/Leman Russ tanks.
besides the fact that they are both tracked and kind of a square in shape there really isn't much in common between those two. Even the truck and suspension is different. They are kind of a the same, the same an euro fighter and an A-10 are identical.
Yeah. The stubbers are a testament to GW not breaking away from the theme of the setting. Primaris are true to the spirit of 40k.
Wasn't it done to avoid rules overlap and to so that 3ed party parts couldn't be easily used on the ugly primaris vehicles to fix their looks though?
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Lol who knows.
I'm not convinced that's the main reason.
And yes, Astra Militarum and Astartes vehicles are similar in the way that they look like grossly outdated tanks with impractical sponson weapons. I'm not saying they literally look exactly the same in terms of shape.
The Repulsors are a more modern designed (whilst related to the classic Astartes vehicles), grav tanks with functional turret weapons.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
Quite simply, the older Imperium tanks lend their aestheitcs from early tanks...the Mk IV in case for the Land Raider and probably the Char B1 for the Leman Russ. There is no modern aesthetic there, and it works.
the new Repulsor series is such a leap in design that it doesn't feel that it belongs with the same models. They certainly do not look anything like Abrams or Challengers, but more akin to modern IFVs (if you forget about the goofy grav plates which makes me dislike the vehicle). Along with the new "tacticool" phobos guys, the design leap seems like we should be playing Warhammer 50K, not 40k.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Are you saying you don't want anything new and everything has to use the same old chassis or armour types?
120227
Post by: Karol
Ishagu wrote:Lol who knows.
I'm not convinced that's the main reason.
And yes, Astra Militarum and Astartes vehicles are similar in the way that they look like grossly outdated tanks with impractical sponson weapons. I'm not saying they literally look exactly the same in terms of shape.
The Repulsors are a more modern designed (whilst related to the classic Astartes vehicles), grav tanks with functional turret weapons.
And having two assymetrical guns inside the same turret is practical? or having a long barrled gun with a rocket launcher on top it is a good idea? Soviet did that for their APC, when the things actually got to be used they had problems with them either warping the gun barrel, blowing up when damaged or forcing soldiers to do a sapers work if it missfired and did not launch but stay primed.
Something like a land raider, is at least a design that worked in trench warfare.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
Ishagu wrote:Are you saying you don't want anything new and everything has to use the same old chassis or armour types?
Nothing was implied in my response (if that is aimed at me), but if you're asking, I don't mind new as long as it stays within the design elements of the former. I actually like the new infantry, but I detest the new vehicles simply from an aesthetic point of view. Give me a Land Raider over a Repulsor any day.
120227
Post by: Karol
 bullyboy wrote:Quite simply, the older Imperium tanks lend their aestheitcs from early tanks...the Mk IV in case for the Land Raider and probably the Char B1 for the Leman Russ. There is no modern aesthetic there, and it works.
the new Repulsor series is such a leap in design that it doesn't feel that it belongs with the same models. They certainly do not look anything like Abrams or Challengers, but more akin to modern IFVs (if you forget about the goofy grav plates which makes me dislike the vehicle). Along with the new "tacticool" phobos guys, the design leap seems like we should be playing Warhammer 50K, not 40k.
Isn't a Lemman Russ just a Grant with the guns swamped, so the main one is in the turret and not in the body?
121715
Post by: Ishagu
I think the new stuff is perfectly in keeping with the old themes whilst modernising the units.
Everything is still clearly a Warhammer Astartes model. End of
If you love Landraiders you can still buy a myriad of version from GW and FW. They aren't going anywhere.
111023
Post by: robbienw
What grossly outdated tanks are you saying the Land Raider looks like then?
Lets have some pictoral examples
Lets also bear in mind the Repulsor looks similar to a Land Raider 
111023
Post by: robbienw
That looks nothing like a Land Raider The only similarities are no large turret gun and similar positioning of vastly different looking side weapons.
It doesn't have the smooth layered armour of the Raider, no top mounted weapon emplacement, no doors at the front or the side, no optics, and the raider is blockier with more angled tracks, that are covered at the top.
So in summary the Land Raider has a similar layout, but is otherwise nothing like that tank. Saying it looks like it is a stretch.
I can see the similarities with IG vehicles of course, due to the riveting and sponson design.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Ishagu wrote:https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d0/42/2fd04211eafbefcf1e21b0aa4ba8ee88.jpg
To be honest, this explains a lot.
If you are comparing that to a LR, it's absolutely and completely pointless to discuss the subtlety of the design choices for the Primaris, and the changes in execution and fluff that they result into.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Ah yes, the old "You are too stupid to talk to" argument. Classic. Ten points to Gryffindor!
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Insectum7 wrote:As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.
Just because there's enough to move, doesn't mean it'll move without toppling. This is why the new Dreads and Contemptors are superior to the silly washing machine Dreads. Helbrutes aren't much better but they've got enough organic bitz to be more believable in movement.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
 Agamemnon2 wrote:Ah yes, the old "You are too stupid to talk to" argument. Classic. Ten points to Gryffindor!
In no way I implied he is stupid. If this is what you read from my post, it's on you.
The only implication is a lack of subtlety in recognizing shapes for vehicles. The rest it's you being unable to come up with an actual answer.
118486
Post by: Andykp
 Kaiyanwang wrote: Ishagu wrote:https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d0/42/2fd04211eafbefcf1e21b0aa4ba8ee88.jpg
To be honest, this explains a lot.
If you are comparing that to a LR, it's absolutely and completely pointless to discuss the subtlety of the design choices for the Primaris, and the changes in execution and fluff that they result into.
It’s a nice conversation where people are trying to explain why they like something or dislike something with out claiming that their taste is the only one that has any bearing on good design then you wade in again with this tripe. Not really helpful and again you are assuming a hell of a lot here. From what I’ve heard from you so far is that all you only notice subtlety of design when it supports your arguments, any other features are ignored otherwise.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
That's not a land raider ladies and gentlemen.
Not beyond "turret-less tank". In case, on the side that are elements that can recall the Russ.
There is no way around it, not matter how much you gnash your teeth.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Are you expecting to see a real world vehicle that looks exactly like a Landraider? Iol
You won't, because a Landraider has no ground clearance and literally can't function.
61850
Post by: Apple fox
Honestly a great design change for the land raider would probably be to lose the side weapons.
Turn it into a assault transport with the single heavy weapon, high capacity and some interesting options for on top.
More ways for marines to get out and support for that as well as a good drop in points. It also fits with tank design for extreme unknowns in environment. Without a turret or side weapons.
With the smaller predator tank taking up its heavy weapon slack, and the rhino for smaller and less close quarters marine units. It would look quite good I feel like that on the table.
I also think they need to get that ground clearance up, it’s a major wtf in its design :(
111023
Post by: robbienw
Ishagu wrote:Are you expecting to see a real world vehicle that looks exactly like a Landraider? Iol
You won't, because a Landraider has no ground clearance and literally can't function.
That’s not what we were discussing though, don’t try to divert the point. You said a Land Raider looks like that WW1 tank; it looks nothing like it, thus your assertion that space marine vehicles look like ‘grossly outdated’ tanks is wrong.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Except it does look like a WW1 tank
It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol
118486
Post by: Andykp
From its original design as a scratch built tank featured in the rogue trader book the land raider has drawn its inspiration from WW1 early tanks. But futuristic in space. No one is saying that that is a land raider, but it is related in the same way a space marine is to the classic image of a medieval knight. They aren’t the same but have provide inspiration for them. That “subtlety” appears to be lost on you.
111023
Post by: robbienw
It looks nothing like it, other than a few basic layout similarities as I was saying above.
Using your line of reasoning we could say the repulsor looks like the Land Raider, therefore it also looks like a WW1 tank. Just with some rectangles on poles instead of tracks, and some .50 cals strapped on
50012
Post by: Crimson
Land Raider certainly resembles that WWI tank. It has the same basic layout. However it has a distinct angular scifi aesthetic on top of that. Repulsor has that same aesthetic applied to more modern tank layout. And of course IG tanks are based on WWI tanks too, and in addition of the mere layout retain a lot of the detail from those designs. So both the people who say the old marine tanks resemble the IG tanks and the people who say the primaris grav tanks resemble the old marine tanks are correct, they're just comparing different aspects of the designs.
122350
Post by: Cronch
Primaris marines design is fine, it's essentially Space marines, but with anime bits and bobs glued on. The Primaris jet-engine-tanks meanwhile look like something straight out of MASK or GI JOE. They suffer the same issue that any of the large 40k kits do, they cross the line from scale-model to tonka toy look imo.
120227
Post by: Karol
Ishagu wrote:Except it does look like a WW1 tank
It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol
But Mark 1-5 from WWI had a rised turret section, they just didn't have guns in them. It was the later post WWII and inter war tanks that brought tanks with turrets in them, at least as far as tanks that head LR type of tracks, and options for side weapons. there were of course the first light renault tank with turrets at the end of WWI, but those looked nothing like the land raider Automatically Appended Next Post: Ishagu wrote:Are you expecting to see a real world vehicle that looks exactly like a Landraider? Iol
You won't, because a Landraider has no ground clearance and literally can't function.
The first LR model looks like a Mark 3-5 from WWI. including the spotter turret section and a gun pointing backwards
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Ishagu wrote:Except it does look like a WW1 tank
It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol
Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.
122350
Post by: Cronch
Fairly sure GW themselves said LR is inspired by the Mk IV back when they released the new plastic kit mid-way through 3rd edition.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Kaiyanwang wrote: Ishagu wrote:Except it does look like a WW1 tank
It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol
Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.
It is, though probably not in the way you thought.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
The Land Raider borrows from the WW1 design, sure. But with the plated armor, angles, lasers, etc. It looks pretty futuristic, too. It's the successful marriage of disparate influences that makes it so cool, imo.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
If you can't see the similarities that led to the land raider design, I don't know how to help you.
As for the Leman Russ, no, it's not a Grant. A Grant shares more with modern tanks than the Char B1. The Char has the hull weapon and turret, but more importantly, the same track style system rather than enclosed tracks like later tanks.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
Agamemnon2 wrote: Kaiyanwang wrote: Ishagu wrote:Except it does look like a WW1 tank It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol
Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters. This is ridiculous.
It is, though probably not in the way you thought.
Except that is exactly that way, because the comparison can be made only on a very fundamental level (like for those humanoid creatures that share a similar body plan). It's the same thing as "they are 2 flat armored vehicles, SEE? THE SAME! GOTCHA!". Being dismissing is not going to make these preposterous claims valid. You are defending a post made by someone that could be speculated as a joke account mocking GW white knights.
120227
Post by: Karol
Insectum7 wrote:Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.
A Lemman Russ is a M3Grant tank, which thanks to 38k years of improvment , finaly moved his main gun to the turret and his support gun to the hull. Automatically Appended Next Post: bullyboy wrote:If you can't see the similarities that led to the land raider design, I don't know how to help you.
As for the Leman Russ, no, it's not a Grant. A Grant shares more with modern tanks than the Char B1. The Char has the hull weapon and turret, but more importantly, the same track style system rather than enclosed tracks like later tanks.
hull gun? check. too tall? check. Bad suspension drive? check again. It is a Grant. only the howitzer was moved to the turret and the low caliber support gun got turn in to a lascannon. Heck they both even have engine drives based on tracktors.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Karol wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.
A Lemman Russ is a M3Grant tank, which thanks to 38k years of improvment , finaly moved his main gun to the turret and his support gun to the hull.
Imo the Russ doesn't bear much resemblance to the Grant. I think it looks morre like a MkIV with a turret.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
anyway with 40K tanks, at least for the IoM one can often tell the inspiration by looking at them. the land raider was obviously inspired by WW1 British Tanks. the Lemen Russ IMHO was inspired by Interwar tank designs. The Rhino IIRC was based off an actual APC. the repulsor is clearly a "hover bradley" it's not an exact match of course, none of the 40k tanks are, but it definatly harkens to it.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I think, getting back on topic, some design elements that work for Primaris are when they look like an evolution to better a current kit. Like the Intercessor, which most consider to be great looking.
As opposed to the Repulsor which feels more like a design mutation than a gradual evolution. The mutation makes the changes to these hover tanks stand out like sore thumbs with the other imperial vehicles and probably in part why they get such mixed reactions.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
I dunno, I can see how the design evolved. looking at the tank beside a land raider, you can actually see the relation between them. both have the slightly tapered front, the rectuangular hull. the repulsor appers to have added the hover plates of a land speeder, and moved the primary armernment into a turret. it then added a secondary turret covering each exit/enterance point to the tank. the changes to it's weapons layout corrects two major design flaws with the land raider
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
I mean you see evolution I see mutation. As evolution might have been sleeker look, still ground based with turret addition.
I honestly think they were trying to go for giant leap in design. However only some people will appreciate that, others feel divorced from it.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Except that is exactly that way, because the comparison can be made only on a very fundamental level (like for those humanoid creatures that share a similar body plan).
It's the same thing as "they are 2 flat armored vehicles, SEE? THE SAME! GOTCHA!".
Being dismissing is not going to make these preposterous claims valid. You are defending a post made by someone that could be speculated as a joke account mocking GW white knights.
The imperial fascination for sponsons on its armored vehicles is indisputably a WW1 aesthetic - no tanks built after the early 30s have them, and for very good reasons. The flat, riveted hull panels are very evocative of British Mark I - VIII designs, particularly the way said panels cover up the road wheels.
Heck, a lot of Leman Russes seen in artwork and studio paintjobs even use the white-red-white vertical stripe markings painted on the outside front "horns" of many Mark IVs. Also take note of the the front idler wheel tensioning assembly on a Mark IV (it's the trough-shaped thing that goes diagonally across the red and white stripes on this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IV_tank#/media/File:MarkIVFemaleTankAshfordKent.jpg) and then look at the corresponding location on a Russ and you'll see that detail has been copied over by whichever GW designer first drew up the kit back in the 90s.
It is not inconceivable to claim a Leman Russ is modeled using several WW1 and interwar period design cues. Its exact pedigree is more complicated than that*, but to pooh-pooh the assertion outright as you, sir, have done, is risible.
* I myself have often wondered if any of the original GW design team saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which invented a wholly ficticious Mark IV-style tank with a turret on top for an iconic action scene. I'm not sure if the timeline works, though. The film came out in 1989, but I don't know when the first appearance of the tank in the 40k universe was. I believe the original would have been a 6mm scale metal model for Space Marine (the game), followed by a 40k 2nd edition plastic kit in the mid-90s. I'm not well enough versed with the early editions of Adeptus Titanicus / Space Marine, alas.
118486
Post by: Andykp
Kaiyanwang wrote: Ishagu wrote:Except it does look like a WW1 tank
It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol
Then we can stop discussing, because the Eldar Guardians, the Orks and the Death Korps are essentially the same model, using your parameters.
This is ridiculous.
Except is is an established fact that gamesworkshop were inspired by the ww1 tanks when making the original landraider. They have said so many times. So it’s a fact not opinion. It wasn’t a ww1 tank. It was inspired by it but was a sci-fi futuristic tank. The mk3 land raider we have now is an evolution of that design. They moved further away from that ww1 look and developedthe angular layer armoured look of all marine tanks that hadn’t existed prior to 3rd edition. So what you see now is an amalgamation of ww1 inspired design and deliberate creation of a unified look of marine vehicles. Again. All facts. To deny that their is anything of a ww1 tank inspiration in the landraider isn’t fact or opinion it’s a lie. So please stop.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
You have kinda of a point for the original Land Raider, but it becomes moot for the iteration Insectum was discussing above.
Yes, the influence is there concerning obsolete concepts like sponsons. But in very general terms.
The presence of the sponsons or similar elements by themselves is not enough. The way the elements of the design are shaped go in different direction in the subsequent iterations.
85390
Post by: bullyboy
Karol wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Leman Russes look like WW1 tanks with a turret. They even loook like they're built the same way, with riveted steel plates.
A Lemman Russ is a M3Grant tank, which thanks to 38k years of improvment , finaly moved his main gun to the turret and his support gun to the hull.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote:If you can't see the similarities that led to the land raider design, I don't know how to help you.
As for the Leman Russ, no, it's not a Grant. A Grant shares more with modern tanks than the Char B1. The Char has the hull weapon and turret, but more importantly, the same track style system rather than enclosed tracks like later tanks.
hull gun? check. too tall? check. Bad suspension drive? check again. It is a Grant. only the howitzer was moved to the turret and the low caliber support gun got turn in to a lascannon. Heck they both even have engine drives based on tracktors.
You realize that the Grant is not the only tank designed that way. Take your time to look at Char B1 and other similar tanks that share some WW1 design elements. It is not a Grant, not that it's really that important.
1409
Post by: Zustiur
I'm torn between complaining about the grav plates and complaining about the busyness caused by having so many weapons. Both things feel a bit off to me. But that's personal taste. I can definitely see the similarities between land Raiders and repulsors.
There are several conversions and photoshop efforts around that make the repulsor more eye pleasing. Including one with lascannons on sponsors and no turret. I think it's largely the double up missile pods on the turret and the use of stubbers that bother me weapon wise.
And I think having grav plates at the middle front is what I find jarring there. If it were only in place of tracks it might look better to me.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
To go back to my original point: both the classic Astartes and Imperial Guard vehicles are a mish-mash of retro futuristic design with inspiration from WW1 tanks.
The new Primaris tanks are a greater departure and more futuristic in design and function, whilst still offering a homage to the classic Astartes tanks in terms of some angles and shapes.
I'm happy that they are a greater departure from the mass produced gear of the Astra Militarum.
111023
Post by: robbienw
Except for those mass produced stubbers
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Ironhail stubbers are actually unique to the Primaris, as far as I know. They are an improvement on the regular version.
But it also makes perfect sense for vehicles to be armed with easy to maintain, cheap, mass produced secondary weapons.
Also they look much nicer than stubby Storm Bolters that have no place being aimed on a pintle.
111023
Post by: robbienw
I'm just going on look, they look very similar to other imperial stubbers and ww2 onwards .50cals  Storm Bolters have been pintle mounts on marine vehicles for decades. Suddenly you have a problem with them when somebody makes fun of the primaris pintle mounts
118486
Post by: Andykp
Kaiyanwang wrote:You have kinda of a point for the original Land Raider, but it becomes moot for the iteration Insectum was discussing above.
Yes, the influence is there concerning obsolete concepts like sponsons. But in very general terms.
The presence of the sponsons or similar elements by themselves is not enough. The way the elements of the design are shaped go in different direction in the subsequent iterations.
It’s a progression, the mk1 landraider looks like a ww1 tank in space. The mk2 and 3 landraiders look like the mk1 tank but even more in space less ww1. The repulsor looks like the mk3 but even even more in space but with a Bradley turret on it.
In the 2nd to 3rd edition era gw decided to differentiate the tanks of marines and guard. Guard went further to the ww1 aesthetic but still not exact match but with design cues off them. Rivets, sponsors etc. Fw took that a bit more ww2 in design. Marines then got the angled over lapped plates that we know and love today.
So no, a mk3 landraider isn’t a ww1 tank like a labradoodle isn’t a wolf. But they are related and you can see it.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
robbienw wrote:I'm just going on look, they look very similar to other imperial stubbers and ww2 onwards .50cals Storm Bolters have been pintle mounts on marine vehicles for decades. Suddenly you have a problem with them when somebody makes fun of the primaris pintle mounts
I have no problem with it at all. I don't like the auto launcher on the new tanks. No one has to love every aspect of any of the vehicles.
118486
Post by: Andykp
robbienw wrote:I'm just going on look, they look very similar to other imperial stubbers and ww2 onwards .50cals Storm Bolters have been pintle mounts on marine vehicles for decades. Suddenly you have a problem with them when somebody makes fun of the primaris pintle mounts
Personally wasn’t a fan of strombolters on Pintle mounts. Likes the multimelta or a the heavy bolters but avoided storm bolters. Heavy stubbers on imperial guard. The marines look best with mini guns pintles imo. Would like to hear from the design team why they have moved to heavy stubbers. The return to auto cannons is a welcome one to me too.
111023
Post by: robbienw
It’s got to be cause of the mechanicus link, they love a cognis stubber.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
I think it's just cause the design team likes the look of 50 cal barrels. and I do too TBH. leaving aside lore concerns the guns look nice. Ishagu and Andy aren't wrong when they say the storm bolter looked a little... stubby on a tank's pintal mount. it looked like someone lashed a pair of M4 carbines to the pintal. when you see apintal mounts on actual tanks it's useally a heavy machine gun. so a pintal mount SHOULD be a heavy bolter or heavy stubber IMHO
111023
Post by: robbienw
Pintle heavy bolters, I wholeheartedly approve
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
honestly one'd work on a pintle mount it'd not be that big.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
That's what's on a Land Speeder or Attack Bike.
118486
Post by: Andykp
And on an old land raider and there was one on a named character baneblade.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Andykp wrote:And on an old land raider and there was one on a named character baneblade.
Are you referring to the Fortress of Arrogance? I think that was the name.
118486
Post by: Andykp
No a forge world one from somebody Weismann or something from imperial armour one.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
All this discussion about Land Raiders made me wonder if people were discussing more the MkI or MkII Land Raider design. I mean, there is some differences in design:
105713
Post by: Insectum7
118486
Post by: Andykp
I was talking about them all.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
That's a wide net to cast since they have differences.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
One looks like a brick, the other looks like it should be on the moon, imo.
118486
Post by: Andykp
As does the LR mk1 from the WW1 tank. I was discussing how they show the progression of the design but you can still see elements in the later versions present in the original. Same as rtb01 through old marines to primaris marines. Changes but design elements tie them all together.
Those pics made me realise I really liked the old landraider.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
The reinforced armor mod is gold, imo.
Or you mean the ancient one? The original has this funny "perch" to it that the FW redux doesnt really capture.
118486
Post by: Andykp
Insectum7 wrote:The reinforced armor mod is gold, imo.
Or you mean the ancient one?
Now you say it I see the extra armour. Does look ace. I meant the ancient one. Happy memories. I’m also a fan of the epic one they did that Forgeworld made too. Bit the old one is the best. Silly as f@ck but ace. No space for transport, so tall it would roll around guns that just needed to snap off.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Andykp wrote: Insectum7 wrote:The reinforced armor mod is gold, imo.
Or you mean the ancient one?
Now you say it I see the extra armour. Does look ace. I meant the ancient one. Happy memories. I’m also a fan of the epic one they did that Forgeworld made too. Bit the old one is the best. Silly as f@ck but ace. No space for transport, so tall it would roll around guns that just needed to snap off.
Honestly the space inside that thing is vacuous. Esp, if you recall the size of beakies.
I dont remember the Epic FW one, just the Epic Armageddon one (and of course, the original one in Space Marine)
118486
Post by: Andykp
I think it came out with epic 40000. Plastic similar shape to the new one but with armoured sponsons like a leman Russ and integral heavy bolters like a repulsor.
118486
Post by: Andykp
Andykp wrote:I think it came out with epic 40000. Plastic similar shape to the new one but with armoured sponsons like a leman Russ and integral heavy bolters like a repulsor.
Found a pic.
1
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Yeah that's the Epic Armageddon one.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Land raiders, I still do love them, I should I have like 6
78092
Post by: Ginjitzu
They're gorgeous models alright - the current ones I mean . I sincerely hope they never go away. Even if the oldmarines' days are numbered, I really hope we have a tracked Land Raider for as long as Games-Workshop exists.
50012
Post by: Crimson
 Ginjitzu wrote:They're gorgeous models alright - the current ones I mean . I sincerely hope they never go away. Even if the oldmarines' days are numbered, I really hope we have a tracked Land Raider for as long as Games-Workshop exists.
When the old Marines get moved to the Legends, they can give all the old tracked Marine vehicles to the Sisters. That way they will still be part of the fully supported part of the game.
11860
Post by: Martel732
.50 cal is a pretty good gun, too.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Crimson wrote: Ginjitzu wrote:They're gorgeous models alright - the current ones I mean . I sincerely hope they never go away. Even if the oldmarines' days are numbered, I really hope we have a tracked Land Raider for as long as Games-Workshop exists.
When the old Marines get moved to the Legends, they can give all the old tracked Marine vehicles to the Sisters. That way they will still be part of the fully supported part of the game.
I'd be cool withsisters getting access to land raiders.. or Admech.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Crimson wrote: Ginjitzu wrote:They're gorgeous models alright - the current ones I mean . I sincerely hope they never go away. Even if the oldmarines' days are numbered, I really hope we have a tracked Land Raider for as long as Games-Workshop exists.
When the old Marines get moved to the Legends, they can give all the old tracked Marine vehicles to the Sisters. That way they will still be part of the fully supported part of the game.
When all the old marines stay around for quite a long time yet, there won't be a reason to move their vehicles to sisters as they are still part of the game. Really man, take a breath and wait and see time is your ally sooner or later you'll be right and no armies will be supported anymore.
120424
Post by: ValentineGames
The primaris trainwreck cannot be stopped
1
17897
Post by: Thargrim
None of the things I had liked about space marines is present on that model. It's just an abomination IMO, not much else to say.
61850
Post by: Apple fox
He makes me think Cheesy supervillain from like marvel or DC. I really do not like it at all.
84364
Post by: pm713
Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
61850
Post by: Apple fox
pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
I think the helmet on his belt is just a memento of his old armour.
He's wearing half a Suppressor helm.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
That shrike model is awful, and he's for some reason gotta be tall on the wall as he looks ugly with his half a helmet, very heroic.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
He looks like he'd strut down the road pointing at random women and dancing to some skanky funk before heading to a jazz club.
84364
Post by: pm713
Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
pm713 wrote:Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
This is 40k, where your sarge not wearing a helmet is a common occurrence.
84364
Post by: pm713
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote:Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
This is 40k, where your sarge not wearing a helmet is a common occurrence.
Sergeants aren't in charge of whole Chapters. I could get behind the no helmet thing if there wasn't also a stupid mask.
61850
Post by: Apple fox
pm713 wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote:Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
This is 40k, where your sarge not wearing a helmet is a common occurrence.
Sergeants aren't in charge of whole Chapters. I could get behind the no helmet thing if there wasn't also a stupid mask.
The mask really does look so weird, with the hair as well. I cannot get Edgy spiderman out of my head now D:
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Yeah that model is horrible.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
I actually like it. My only points of real issue are that I think the base is too tall, he should be closer to the ground, and that while I like the unhelmed head (the only reason it looks so emo is because of it being black and that it's plastic, so while normal long hair going over the eyes might not look so thick - like my own - the fact it's a plastic model causes it to have a different look), there needs to be the beaky variant, much like how Calgar and Sicarius have helmed and unhelmed versions.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
pm713 wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote:Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
This is 40k, where your sarge not wearing a helmet is a common occurrence.
Sergeants aren't in charge of whole Chapters. I could get behind the no helmet thing if there wasn't also a stupid mask.
Okay then, Chapter Masters like Gabriel Angelos, Calgar, Azreal (who for the longest time had his helmet being carried nearby by Watchers!), Grimnar...
But yeah Shrike looks hilarious. I do think he would've benefited from a helmet/mask combo.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
So old style jump packs will go away along with the shortmarines?
Or maybe be exclusive of the Blood Angels?
84364
Post by: pm713
ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote:Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
This is 40k, where your sarge not wearing a helmet is a common occurrence.
Sergeants aren't in charge of whole Chapters. I could get behind the no helmet thing if there wasn't also a stupid mask.
Okay then, Chapter Masters like Gabriel Angelos, Calgar, Azreal (who for the longest time had his helmet being carried nearby by Watchers!), Grimnar...
But yeah Shrike looks hilarious. I do think he would've benefited from a helmet/mask combo.
Based on DoW3 Angelos is straight up magic, Azrael has a forcefield bubble, Grimnar has a cultural excuse and Calgar I have no excuse for.
For a stealth Chapter Master he's very...on display with the base as well.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
pm713 wrote:
Based on DoW3 Angelos is straight up magic, Azrael has a forcefield bubble, Grimnar has a cultural excuse and Calgar I have no excuse for.
For a stealth Chapter Master he's very...on display with the base as well.
I think they were going for a predatory bird pose with him up high, ready to strike.
118486
Post by: Andykp
I’m pro primaris all the way but that thing is ugly. It has none of the things that make primaris great imo. It’s dripping in crap and hideous. The legs in Phobos armour is so unbalanced with the top. And the head is shocking. If it has an option to wear the helmet might look better but the claws and talons etc will still look awful. Sad thing is the ruin he is stood on looks great.
84364
Post by: pm713
ClockworkZion wrote:pm713 wrote:
Based on DoW3 Angelos is straight up magic, Azrael has a forcefield bubble, Grimnar has a cultural excuse and Calgar I have no excuse for.
For a stealth Chapter Master he's very...on display with the base as well.
I think they were going for a predatory bird pose with him up high, ready to strike.
It might be me but they failed epicly.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Failed I can agree with, but I doubt the "epicness" of that failure.
I can't even be sure that was the intent, it's just the first thought that comes to mind.
That said it beats the old Shoryuken pose.
88903
Post by: Kaiyanwang
ClockworkZion wrote:
I can't even be sure that was the intent, it's just the first thought that comes to mind.
I think you nailed it, that was the intention. BTW I think it's clear at this point what I think of the line but "Shirke ready to strike from above" it's not a problem for me
118486
Post by: Andykp
Kaiyanwang wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I can't even be sure that was the intent, it's just the first thought that comes to mind.
I think you nailed it, that was the intention. BTW I think it's clear at this point what I think of the line but "Shirke ready to strike from above" it's not a problem for me
With a longer look it isn’t that “waiting to strike”. Not sure what the pose is supposed to be but doesn’t look very coiled spring.
84364
Post by: pm713
Surely you mean waiting to SHRIKE?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
You mean impale small prey creatures on spikes that you use as a matter?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Andykp wrote: Kaiyanwang wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I can't even be sure that was the intent, it's just the first thought that comes to mind.
I think you nailed it, that was the intention. BTW I think it's clear at this point what I think of the line but "Shirke ready to strike from above" it's not a problem for me
With a longer look it isn’t that “waiting to strike”. Not sure what the pose is supposed to be but doesn’t look very coiled spring.
It's very clear. He is riding the rubble across the floor before he pulls down his power armour, creating a gust of wind that blows his astonished audiences hair before he tells everyone to " dig on this."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hyperion reference?
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
 A Town Called Malus wrote:Andykp wrote: Kaiyanwang wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I can't even be sure that was the intent, it's just the first thought that comes to mind.
I think you nailed it, that was the intention. BTW I think it's clear at this point what I think of the line but "Shirke ready to strike from above" it's not a problem for me
With a longer look it isn’t that “waiting to strike”. Not sure what the pose is supposed to be but doesn’t look very coiled spring.
It's very clear. He is riding the rubble across the floor before he pulls down his power armour, creating a gust of wind that blows his astonished audiences hair before he tells everyone to "dig on this".
I just spit my tea, good job, well done lol.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
A Town Called Malus wrote:Andykp wrote: Kaiyanwang wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:
I can't even be sure that was the intent, it's just the first thought that comes to mind.
I think you nailed it, that was the intention. BTW I think it's clear at this point what I think of the line but "Shirke ready to strike from above" it's not a problem for me
With a longer look it isn’t that “waiting to strike”. Not sure what the pose is supposed to be but doesn’t look very coiled spring.
It's very clear. He is riding the rubble across the floor before he pulls down his power armour, creating a gust of wind that blows his astonished audiences hair before he tells everyone to " dig on this."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hyperion reference?
Aww. Good ol' Hyperion.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Nope. Go look up the actual bird. Shrikes keep larders of their kills by impaling them on spikes.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
pm713 wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:pm713 wrote:Apple fox wrote:pm713 wrote:Is his helmet somehow missing the top? Or did they add hair to a helmet?
That is his hair, he has his helmet on the belt.
But....why? Is his waist where all his organs are stored? Heads are important. Protect them.
This is 40k, where your sarge not wearing a helmet is a common occurrence.
Sergeants aren't in charge of whole Chapters. I could get behind the no helmet thing if there wasn't also a stupid mask.
Okay then, Chapter Masters like Gabriel Angelos, Calgar, Azreal (who for the longest time had his helmet being carried nearby by Watchers!), Grimnar...
But yeah Shrike looks hilarious. I do think he would've benefited from a helmet/mask combo.
Based on DoW3 Angelos is straight up magic, Azrael has a forcefield bubble, Grimnar has a cultural excuse and Calgar I have no excuse for.
For a stealth Chapter Master he's very...on display with the base as well.
Calgar's newest model has a helmeted option FWIW. It's a significant improvement as someone that refuses to field an unhelmeted Marine.
122261
Post by: slave.entity
Everything wrong with new marines in a nutshell. I could never tell what those weird foot brace things were and they really bother me.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Just put a helmet on, clip down the wall, and get rid of the hook foot.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Just replace him with a new model, and jobs a good un. Looks good now.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
105466
Post by: fraser1191
ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 fraser1191 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
A lot of people switch opinions once the models are in hand.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
fraser1191 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
I switched opinions once I was told the dangling bits on their crotch weren't molded there and were completely optional.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: fraser1191 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
I switched opinions once I was told the dangling bits on their crotch weren't molded there and were completely optional.
It's funny the reliquaries are so disliked because the idea of carrying bits of bone into battle is one of the more Imperial things in the game.
I see complaints that Primaris need more baubles, but then the baubles they do get are apparently the wrong kind (despite being pretty on point for the setting).
118982
Post by: Apple Peel
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: fraser1191 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
I switched opinions once I was told the dangling bits on their crotch weren't molded there and were completely optional.
I haven’t looked at the kit. Are the rope bits attached to the reliquary a part of the reliquary or the torso?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Just looked at the sprues: the reliquaries are hooked onto the bit of rope which is seperate to the torso, so some gap filling may needed to make it work, even if you trim off the reliquary from the rope.
118982
Post by: Apple Peel
ClockworkZion wrote:Just looked at the sprues: the reliquaries are hooked onto the bit of rope which is seperate to the torso, so some gap filling may needed to make it work, even if you trim off the reliquary from the rope.
Oh, good! I think they might look neat hanging off the non-busy pauldron, or, without rope, mounted somewhere.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
ClockworkZion wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: fraser1191 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
I switched opinions once I was told the dangling bits on their crotch weren't molded there and were completely optional.
It's funny the reliquaries are so disliked because the idea of carrying bits of bone into battle is one of the more Imperial things in the game.
I see complaints that Primaris need more baubles, but then the baubles they do get are apparently the wrong kind (despite being pretty on point for the setting).
Placement is key. They'd be less offensive if they were hanging from the wrist instead of the crotch
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: fraser1191 wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I feel like complaints about him will die down once the model is in people's hands. Heck, considering how few people actually play Raven Guard chances are most of the people complaining wouldn't have bought him anyways.
I did a 180 on aggressors once I bought them. I thought they looked weird but now that I modeled some and painted them up they look fantastic. I don't play RG but if I had 1 wish it would be to magically change the paint of my army to the corresponding chapter I'm playing at will
I switched opinions once I was told the dangling bits on their crotch weren't molded there and were completely optional.
It's funny the reliquaries are so disliked because the idea of carrying bits of bone into battle is one of the more Imperial things in the game.
I see complaints that Primaris need more baubles, but then the baubles they do get are apparently the wrong kind (despite being pretty on point for the setting).
Placement is key. They'd be less offensive if they were hanging from the wrist instead of the crotch
in fairness reliquaries hanging from the waist like that is pretty typical I'm almost posivite I've seen regular marine units with similer placement.
111023
Post by: robbienw
I cant think of any classic marine units with huge reliquaries placed over the crotch in such a fashion. Its the placement that make it look odd.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Maybe that is part of his strike from the shadows, the smoke wafts up from the crotch region and he carries his darkness with him. No need to pop smoke when you are the smoke.
121715
Post by: Ishagu
Lol I love how people complain about the pose of the new Shrike.
The old one was literally dancing to the sound of music.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Ishagu wrote:Lol I love how people complain about the pose of the new Shrike.
The old one was literally dancing to the sound of music.
The hills are aliiiiive with the sounds of puuuurging!
118486
Post by: Andykp
Ishagu wrote:Lol I love how people complain about the pose of the new Shrike.
The old one was literally dancing to the sound of music.
Yes! The old model was awful. Truly bad.
61850
Post by: Apple fox
Ishagu wrote:Lol I love how people complain about the pose of the new Shrike.
The old one was literally dancing to the sound of music.
I am sure people can dislike both
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Nope, if you dislike one you must love the other one. Thems the rules.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
Exactly, gotta do one before the other. Otherwise the machine breaks down.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Andykp wrote: Ishagu wrote:Lol I love how people complain about the pose of the new Shrike.
The old one was literally dancing to the sound of music.
Yes! The old model was awful. Truly bad.
it didn';t help that it didn't have anything special about it, why bother making it when you could basicly kitbash your own (and not deal with finecast)
120227
Post by: Karol
That never stoped GW from making models. Grey Knights only new 8th ed model was Voldus, and he is a termintor with a bare head and a thunder hammer. You can build a model like that with the plastic termintor box, I think.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
I'll be honest: I want Mordrak back. Nothing special about his wargear but being haunted by ghostly battle brethren was a cool idea.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Karol wrote:That never stoped GW from making models. Grey Knights only new 8th ed model was Voldus, and he is a termintor with a bare head and a thunder hammer. You can build a model like that with the plastic termintor box, I think.
yeah but he looks BETTER then what you can built from scratch
120227
Post by: Karol
Now I haven't seen the model for plastic termintors, but from the stuff online, the difference between either is minimal at best. He is a standing dude with a hammer and stormbolter. A plastic termintor can do that too. Am just not sure if GK termintors come with helmetless option that is all. Plus on top of that they are not 35$ for one model. Automatically Appended Next Post: ClockworkZion wrote:I'll be honest: I want Mordrak back. Nothing special about his wargear but being haunted by ghostly battle brethren was a cool idea.
Sadly I do not know what or who a Mordrak is. But from what people told me here, Grey Knights lost a lot of model options when GW stoped doing metal models.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
He was actually a pretty fun character, I did like his back story. Another casualty of the no model no rules crusade.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
grey knights really IMHO had their soul ripped out in the conversion from 5th to 6th. whatever your issues with Matt Ward, the 5th edition GK codex had a real sense of identity to it. and a real purpose, they where fluffed as anti demon specialsits and they could do that job really well (in addition to being damn effective vs psykers over all)
6th edition in the process of toning them down also detroyed the armies soul. and the Grey Knights have been a shambling zombie ever since.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
BrianDavion wrote:grey knights really IMHO had their soul ripped out in the conversion from 5th to 6th. whatever your issues with Matt Ward, the 5th edition GK codex had a real sense of identity to it. and a real purpose, they where fluffed as anti demon specialsits and they could do that job really well (in addition to being damn effective vs psykers over all)
6th edition in the process of toning them down also detroyed the armies soul. and the Grey Knights have been a shambling zombie ever since.
Mmm, imo the 3rd-4th edition Daemon Hunters book was far superior to the Wardian Grey Knight 5th.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Insectum7 wrote:BrianDavion wrote:grey knights really IMHO had their soul ripped out in the conversion from 5th to 6th. whatever your issues with Matt Ward, the 5th edition GK codex had a real sense of identity to it. and a real purpose, they where fluffed as anti demon specialsits and they could do that job really well (in addition to being damn effective vs psykers over all)
6th edition in the process of toning them down also detroyed the armies soul. and the Grey Knights have been a shambling zombie ever since.
Mmm, imo the 3rd-4th edition Daemon Hunters book was far superior to the Wardian Grey Knight 5th.
before my time sadly. but the fact is that by 6th edition Grey Knight had lost their soul. and that remains to this day. GKs in 8th edition do not feel like an elite corps of deamon hunters.
11860
Post by: Martel732
BrianDavion wrote:grey knights really IMHO had their soul ripped out in the conversion from 5th to 6th. whatever your issues with Matt Ward, the 5th edition GK codex had a real sense of identity to it. and a real purpose, they where fluffed as anti demon specialsits and they could do that job really well (in addition to being damn effective vs psykers over all)
6th edition in the process of toning them down also detroyed the armies soul. and the Grey Knights have been a shambling zombie ever since.
I'd say the same for BA.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
well with any luck blood angels will get codex 8.5 and will get back their soul. that said I've not seen anything that specificly rendered the blood angels souless. "less powerful" doesn't mean missing their soul
120227
Post by: Karol
Insectum7 wrote:
6th edition in the process of toning them down also detroyed the armies soul. and the Grey Knights have been a shambling zombie ever since.
Mmm, imo the 3rd-4th edition Daemon Hunters book was far superior to the Wardian Grey Knight 5th.
What was the difference between one and the other? All I know that somewhere between 8th ed and the past, GK and a lot of other armies like Dark Eldar lost a lot of metal models, but that is all I know about the change, and the only unit wise change I know of was that in the past GK could take Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
The Daemonhunters book included Grey Knights as well as Inquisitorial forces and adjuncts. It built upon the idea that Grey Knights operated more as a branch of the Inquisition and less of a stand-alone army. In a time without generic allies rules, it provided rules for fielding them along side other forces, which Imo is most fitting.
The 5th Ed. book doubled down on Grey Knights as their own force, and built them out with a bunch of new units. I believe that's when we got the Dreadknight, Draigo, a notorious story involving the sacrifice of Sisters of Battle, Psycannons everywhere, etc. The presentation of Grey Knights got more cartooney, imo.
123547
Post by: AngryAngel80
BrianDavion wrote:grey knights really IMHO had their soul ripped out in the conversion from 5th to 6th. whatever your issues with Matt Ward, the 5th edition GK codex had a real sense of identity to it. and a real purpose, they where fluffed as anti demon specialsits and they could do that job really well (in addition to being damn effective vs psykers over all)
6th edition in the process of toning them down also detroyed the armies soul. and the Grey Knights have been a shambling zombie ever since.
Not exactly, I like zombies, I don't like current GK. I do miss the 5th ed and even the one before that was better.
74088
Post by: Irbis
BrianDavion wrote:well with any luck blood angels will get codex 8.5 and will get back their soul. that said I've not seen anything that specificly rendered the blood angels souless. "less powerful" doesn't mean missing their soul
It's not the question of power. BA in 5th edition could do mechanized assault list, archangels, golden wing, blood rodeo, descent of angels, death wing, air cavalry list, these were all drastically different lists that were nevertheless all viable and fun to play. Current 3x smash captains garbage might be stronger but it gaks all over fluff, is not fun for either side, makes modelling rest of the army pointless, and in general makes you question your hobby choices. Try to play these lists, then talk anything about power being ""soul"" of anything...
Insectum7 wrote:Mmm, imo the 3rd-4th edition Daemon Hunters book was far superior to the Wardian Grey Knight 5th.
You mean that complete garbage that was pathetically underpowered in 3rd, before rolling down to unplayable in 4th, with such gems as GK captains being mooks with a single wound and new GK inductees not being told how to activate their lightsab-- I mean, force swords, making them comically ineffective in fighting their supposed main target, daemons? That one? With one of the funniest fast attack units in 40K history? With fluff being in some places even worse than the rules? So bereft of options you needed to start spending points on imaginary "units" consisting of blasts even in mid sized games? 
I still remember all the 'water way' articles written in abused housewife style where the players tried to cope somehow and piece together something resembling any remotely winning strategy (read - lose by 5th or 6th turn instead of usual 2nd, because the book was incapable of even a draw, never mind a win even against list spamming chaos spawn, then one of the worst units in the game). People who complain about GK now would probably cut their own wrists with their own dice if they had to play with this junk
Insectum7 wrote:The Daemonhunters book included Grey Knights as well as Inquisitorial forces and adjuncts. It built upon the idea that Grey Knights operated more as a branch of the Inquisition and less of a stand-alone army. In a time without generic allies rules, it provided rules for fielding them along side other forces, which Imo is most fitting.
The 5th Ed. book doubled down on Grey Knights as their own force, and built them out with a bunch of new units. I believe that's when we got the Dreadknight, Draigo, a notorious story involving the sacrifice of Sisters of Battle, Psycannons everywhere, etc. The presentation of Grey Knights got more cartooney, imo.
Translation - made GK worthless mooks dragging the army down, and the only way to make your list better was to take less GK, more inquisitorial models.
Brilliant writing!
Incidentally, you're completely wrong because 5th edition book massively expanded upon the Inquisitiorial side (Xenos, anyone?) and let you do both the 'branch' approach to list building, or field army consisting purely of GK or Inquisition - and all three approaches were viable and fun. Some less so, but there was no one obvious monobuild problem most armies suffer from today. You even had multiple variant GK armies in Crowewing, Paladinwing, or Ghost drop with Thawn for extra durability. Gee, having actual choice and fun building lists, what a terrible DEVIL Ward was to give it to players!
I played both GK and BA in 5th edition occasionally, and it still boggles my mind how far superior the individual option balancing system was compared to armory and how much variance there was in HQ unlocks and rules trying to buff all iconic items compared to today...
11860
Post by: Martel732
BrianDavion wrote:well with any luck blood angels will get codex 8.5 and will get back their soul. that said I've not seen anything that specificly rendered the blood angels souless. "less powerful" doesn't mean missing their soul
A melee-focused army that can't win a melee? Even with very expensive units? And still can't win? Specialty dreads ruined, Baal predator useless. They are red ultramarines with no Bobby G.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
 Irbis wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:Mmm, imo the 3rd-4th edition Daemon Hunters book was far superior to the Wardian Grey Knight 5th.
You mean that complete garbage that was pathetically underpowered in 3rd, before rolling down to unplayable in 4th, with such gems as GK captains being mooks with a single wound and new GK inductees not being told how to activate their lightsab-- I mean, force swords, making them comically ineffective in fighting their supposed main target, daemons? That one? With one of the funniest fast attack units in 40K history? With fluff being in some places even worse than the rules? So bereft of options you needed to start spending points on imaginary "units" consisting of blasts even in mid sized games?
I still remember all the 'water way' articles written in abused housewife style where the players tried to cope somehow and piece together something resembling any remotely winning strategy (read - lose by 5th or 6th turn instead of usual 2nd, because the book was incapable of even a draw, never mind a win even against list spamming chaos spawn, then one of the worst units in the game). People who complain about GK now would probably cut their own wrists with their own dice if they had to play with this junk
Insectum7 wrote:The Daemonhunters book included Grey Knights as well as Inquisitorial forces and adjuncts. It built upon the idea that Grey Knights operated more as a branch of the Inquisition and less of a stand-alone army. In a time without generic allies rules, it provided rules for fielding them along side other forces, which Imo is most fitting.
The 5th Ed. book doubled down on Grey Knights as their own force, and built them out with a bunch of new units. I believe that's when we got the Dreadknight, Draigo, a notorious story involving the sacrifice of Sisters of Battle, Psycannons everywhere, etc. The presentation of Grey Knights got more cartooney, imo.
Translation - made GK worthless mooks dragging the army down, and the only way to make your list better was to take less GK, more inquisitorial models.
Brilliant writing!
Incidentally, you're completely wrong because 5th edition book massively expanded upon the Inquisitiorial side (Xenos, anyone?) and let you do both the 'branch' approach to list building, or field army consisting purely of GK or Inquisition - and all three approaches were viable and fun. Some less so, but there was no one obvious monobuild problem most armies suffer from today. You even had multiple variant GK armies in Crowewing, Paladinwing, or Ghost drop with Thawn for extra durability. Gee, having actual choice and fun building lists, what a terrible DEVIL Ward was to give it to players!
I played both GK and BA in 5th edition occasionally, and it still boggles my mind how far superior the individual option balancing system was compared to armory and how much variance there was in HQ unlocks and rules trying to buff all iconic items compared to today...
Yeah, I liked the Daemonhunters book better, so sue me. I'll take Daemon-hunting specialists that are often deployed in small adjunct squads, rather than an over-developed full army with cartoonish baby-carriers.
If you ask me, they should have simply stayed a small but powerful squad of Terminators (all being lvl. 4 Psykers )
15717
Post by: Backfire
Irbis wrote:BrianDavion wrote:well with any luck blood angels will get codex 8.5 and will get back their soul. that said I've not seen anything that specificly rendered the blood angels souless. "less powerful" doesn't mean missing their soul
It's not the question of power. BA in 5th edition could do mechanized assault list, archangels, golden wing, blood rodeo, descent of angels, death wing, air cavalry list, these were all drastically different lists that were nevertheless all viable and fun to play.
Different brains, different strokes. I have always liked Blood Angels, I proxy played Blood Angels couple of times before release of 5th Edition codex and was making plans for BA army. Then 5th edition Codex dropped and killed my interest. How can that be, given how much more varied and powerful it was compared to the generally awful mini-Codex prior to it??
See, the Blood Angels lore is that they're chapter of great legacy and fame which was in decline and struggled to keep up with their reputation. Like old sports team which has many championships decades past and now struggles against relegation. It's an intriguing premise, almost like the Imperium in miniatyre scale. Even the release of the WD mini-codex somehow fit the theme - they can't even get a proper codex anymore!
5th edition book threw that all out of the window. Now Blood Angels had awesome units other Chapters didn't, so many Land Raiders they could literally throw them away, tons of unique weapons which all had 'blood' in their name, Greater Daemon librarian and a flying golden Space Jesus! Far from being in decline, they were now doing great! It just seemed so narf and cartoonish that I completely lost my interest and build up a Dark Angels army instead.
120227
Post by: Karol
Martel732 wrote:BrianDavion wrote:well with any luck blood angels will get codex 8.5 and will get back their soul. that said I've not seen anything that specificly rendered the blood angels souless. "less powerful" doesn't mean missing their soul
A melee-focused army that can't win a melee? Even with very expensive units? And still can't win? Specialty dreads ruined, Baal predator useless. They are red ultramarines with no Bobby G.
Maybe they get their heros turned in to primaris too, and get a stratagem option to run intercessors as melee units. One of my opponents showed me that his Sgts armed with powerfists could do multiple attacks in one turn over and over again, and by multiple I don't mean 2, but something like 4-5 hiting my dudes with d3+1 powerfists.
If BAs get the option to make them death company or buff they could maybe be just as deadly. A trio of death company scout dreads sounds scary to me.
|
|
