Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 19:58:06


Post by: mrFickle


On the Warhammer Community there is a preview of the gladiator, the primaris version of the rhino and predator, although some load puts look a bit like a land raider.

What do you think? Cos I think it’s an ugly model personally. There are so many edges on these new vehicles and they stock paint job is vibrant edge highlighting. Too much for me.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 20:03:37


Post by: the_scotsman


The main problem I have with a large number of the current crop of vehicles is the huge amount of detail, guns, aerials, secondary tertiary and quaternary weapon systems, which results in the vehicles basically having no clear, instantly recognizable role you can tell by looking at them.

Eventually, they just become lumps bristling with guns and antennae.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 20:54:26


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


I think the gladiator just looks like a Predator with more steps. The same basic shape is still there. If anything, the extra lines somewhat break of the shoeboxyness some. But I think all non-Forge World space marine vehicles look ugly. And they are in good company as I think most 40k vehicles are ugly. I am very much WWII and not WWI in my aesthetics taste.

As for weapons, I am fine with main gun, coaxial gun, pintle mounted and hull mounted on a tank. Anymore and it does seem excessive. Again WWII tastes.

I think the Gladiator and Storm Speeder does a much better job staying in a defined lane compared to the Repulsor based tanks. I think when I pick one up it will look fine in U.S. Olive Drab.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 21:02:06


Post by: BlaxicanX


What a dull and derivative design. If you told me that this was just a Repulsor variant I would have believed you.

Space Marines have never had interesting tanks, but the Primaris' are especially egregious. What really sucks is that GW has made great gains with fleshing out their infantry aesthetic, but their rides just do not match.




Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 21:07:22


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I like the look of it. The rigid, flat surface aesthetic really works well here. I like to imagine that the machinery to properly produce curved panels has been lost to the ages and the minor amount of innovation required to reproduce such would be tech-heresy, thus Space Marine vehicles can only be built from flat panels.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 21:18:23


Post by: AnomanderRake


You know how in the video game Spore the offensive power of a vehicle was determined by how many random gun bits you could stick to it?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 21:30:37


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I actually think the gladiator looks cool. The one on the bottom has a single main gun, a co-ax, and essentially vertical Tau gun drones. I can easily see that in a faux-future tank


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 21:32:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 21:51:31


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?


It's no worse than imagining that the Imperium's flow chart to start a ground battle is:

Is the battlefield largely as flat as the Bonneville Salt Flats?
Yes: Deploy Lemon Russes, Rhinos, Predators and/or Land Raiders
No: Vehicle ground battle not feasible, tanks don't have enough clearance, begin exterminatus

Fortunately for the IoM most table tops just so happen to meet that criteria. Also, fortunately Primaris grav vehicles seem to be moving away from only rear and side arc-ed weapons. Hopefully.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 22:14:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?


It's no worse than imagining that the Imperium's flow chart to start a ground battle is:

Is the battlefield largely as flat as the Bonneville Salt Flats?
Yes: Deploy Lemon Russes, Rhinos, Predators and/or Land Raiders
No: Vehicle ground battle not feasible, tanks don't have enough clearance, begin exterminatus

Fortunately for the IoM most table tops just so happen to meet that criteria. Also, fortunately Primaris grav vehicles seem to be moving away from only rear and side arc-ed weapons. Hopefully.

Ok, good one.

But if you want a tank that can cover its side and rear arcs: they're called TURRETS.

And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 22:17:15


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".


You could play 30k with them.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 22:24:46


Post by: Hecaton


I think all the Primaris vehicles are missing something. Plus the hover "treads" look dumb.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 22:41:50


Post by: Gadzilla666


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".


You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 22:44:05


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


I really like the Gladiator with the laser destroyer, except it's terrible.

Like, one of my major complaints with 40k tanks is the number of them that just have more of a man portable heavy weapon for their main armament. Like, that's just stupid. Basically, with the exception of the Ontos, you don't see much in the way of tanks that have multiple mounted guns for AT work, because, in fact, there's no such thing as HP, basically no such thing as death of a thousand 1-damage hits, and it takes one destructive penetrating hit to destroy a tank and a 120mm gun with a depleted uranium subcaliber penetrator is way more effective at getting that one destructive penetrating hit than a battery of 6 recoilless rifles.


Also, I hate it when vehicles have more effective secondary weapons than turret weapons. Like, who designs these things, why is the turret mounted weapon less effective than the multimeltas mounted in little boxes hanging off the sides?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 22:56:39


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
But if you want a tank that can cover its side and rear arcs: they're called TURRETS.


Then you should love the Repulsor Executioner. It's got turrets on its turret, dawg.

But seriously, I think we both agree those turrets and the above the side hatch guns and rear mounted weapons on the repulsor frame are too much gun. Well for marines. It's not enough for Orks. Never enough for Orks.

I also want to keep moving toward the main gun being on a top mounted turret (being able to imagine a tank going hull down is important to me) and move away from side sponson weapons. Like I said, I don't care for WWI aesthetics. At very least move away from powerful, long range side sponson weapons. I am okay with bolters there as basically being hull mounted machine guns to my mind. Even if they leave huge blind spots for doing their job of keeping infantry away. I am also far more okay with the Gladiator's side mounted multi-meltas compared to the lascannon sponsons of a Predator (though the heavy bolter ones do get a pass). They appear more integrated into the frame on the Gladiator than just hanging off a bit of metal like on the Predator. Again, just personal preference though.

I like the Gladiator's appearance far more than the predator. Just like I like the Impulsor over the Rhino and the Repulsor over the Land Raider. I don't particularly like any of them as they are all too boxy and tall, but the space marine tank aesthetic is just that. So at least it's consistent. I can agree that the grav plates aren't that nice looking and kinda pain to deal with on the model. At least GW seems to be moving away with individual grav plate pieces now.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:04:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


First non-Dread Primaris vehicle I've liked.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:04:35


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, I hate it when vehicles have more effective secondary weapons than turret weapons. Like, who designs these things, why is the turret mounted weapon less effective than the multimeltas mounted in little boxes hanging off the sides?


I largely agree with this. One of the things I dislike the most about the Repulsor is that its most powerful weapon option is front hull mounted when there's a turret on top. I let the multi-melta slide on the Gladiator only in that I can imagine not on the tabletop the double las talons have considerably more range than the meltas making them more ideal for hull down scenarios. Where the meltas serve more in an assault tank charge?, I guess. I often have a hard time wrapping my mind around how 40k tankers try and do their jobs considering how their tanks are designed and what little I know about how tank battles play out on our Earth.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:05:44


Post by: PenitentJake


This was the first hover tank I didn't hate.

Still not super keen on it- there won't be any in my GK or DW forces, and those are the only Marines I'm really interested in.



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:14:45


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".


You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.


I'm trying to point out that "must play current tournament-standard 9e 40k and be nailed to GW's whimsical and confused efforts at "balance"" isn't the only way to play the game, and the more people who play 30k/oldhammer the more people will be rescued from the tyranny of the tournament players' "must build spam lists of models you don't like or go home!" attitude.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:32:48


Post by: Stormonu


Eh, I’d buy one if it wasn’t double the price of a predator because <<Primaris>>


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:47:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, I hate it when vehicles have more effective secondary weapons than turret weapons. Like, who designs these things, why is the turret mounted weapon less effective than the multimeltas mounted in little boxes hanging off the sides?


I largely agree with this. One of the things I dislike the most about the Repulsor is that its most powerful weapon option is front hull mounted when there's a turret on top. I let the multi-melta slide on the Gladiator only in that I can imagine not on the tabletop the double las talons have considerably more range than the meltas making them more ideal for hull down scenarios. Where the meltas serve more in an assault tank charge?, I guess. I often have a hard time wrapping my mind around how 40k tankers try and do their jobs considering how their tanks are designed and what little I know about how tank battles play out on our Earth.

I'm with you guys on this one. Gw has a bad tendency to make a tanks primary weapon look rather lackluster compared to its secondary weapons. Case in point, my current pet peav: Average damage from a Fellblade's accelerator cannon AE profile against T8 3+: 5.333, average for its quad lascannon sponsons against T8 3+: 10.37. Why? The aggravating thing is it's an easy fix: just give the AE shells the same profile as the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon. They were practically the same guns in 7th, with both being: Heavy 1, AP2 <ARMOURBANE>, the only difference being that the Fellblade Accelerator Cannon AE shells were S9 vs the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon at S8. Why they didn't do that, search me.

AnomanderRake wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".


You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.


I'm trying to point out that "must play current tournament-standard 9e 40k and be nailed to GW's whimsical and confused efforts at "balance"" isn't the only way to play the game, and the more people who play 30k/oldhammer the more people will be rescued from the tyranny of the tournament players' "must build spam lists of models you don't like or go home!" attitude.

Fair enough. I already try to avoid the Spamalot players. I'd be game for playing 30k or older editions, but there's still the problem of finding others interested in that.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:48:04


Post by: generalchaos34


 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, I’d buy one if it wasn’t double the price of a predator because <<Primaris>>


If its any consolation the kit has a lot more stuff going on in it. Like plenty of bits and its fairly well made (using impulsor as a guide) compared to a predator.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:48:51


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".


You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.


I'm trying to point out that "must play current tournament-standard 9e 40k and be nailed to GW's whimsical and confused efforts at "balance"" isn't the only way to play the game, and the more people who play 30k/oldhammer the more people will be rescued from the tyranny of the tournament players' "must build spam lists of models you don't like or go home!" attitude.

Fair enough. I already try to avoid the Spamalot players. I'd be game for playing 30k or older editions, but there's still the problem of finding others interested in that.


Chicken/egg. The more people who try the more success they'll have. Don't give up hope!


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:52:25


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


I like it! The only Primaris vehicle I haven't liked is still the base Impulsor. These ones are much more up my alley.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/18 23:55:19


Post by: generalchaos34


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I like it! The only Primaris vehicle I haven't liked is still the base Impulsor. These ones are much more up my alley.


Same, the impulsor feels half done and turrets are my jam. I really love the executioner since its has one of the best turret to tank ratios ive seen in 40k and really feels like a real tank. These look like they may get close.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 00:01:57


Post by: Roknar


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?


I don't hate this as much as the repulsor but indeed it shares that mental image, along with the inceptors and suppressors flying through the air like deflating balloons.
WEEE, gravtech go brrrt!

I don't like the cartoonyness of CSM with the daemon engines and the roidraging aesthetic, but primaris give us a run for our money.
But then I also think centurions look like they would be waddling and falling over face first, so it's not even a primaris complaint.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 00:36:53


Post by: BrianDavion


for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?



that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 00:38:58


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Roknar wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?


I don't hate this as much as the repulsor but indeed it shares that mental image, along with the inceptors and suppressors flying through the air like deflating balloons.
WEEE, gravtech go brrrt!

I don't like the cartoonyness of CSM with the daemon engines and the roidraging aesthetic, but primaris give us a run for our money.
But then I also think centurions look like they would be waddling and falling over face first, so it's not even a primaris complaint.

If you think daemon engines are too cartoony that shouldn't be a problem. I've been playing Night Lords for going on two decades and don't own, have never owned, or ever plan to own daemon engines. Csm have plenty of non-daemon engine options for vehicles.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 00:48:14


Post by: AnomanderRake


BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 01:22:30


Post by: BrianDavion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.


ohh absolutely, I mean the Lemen Russ is a HORRIABLE design. with all it's long flat surfaces.

it's why I find some of the criticism of the new Marine tanks (actually some of the criticism of many new vehicles) a bit puzzling as people nitpick how aweful the design is while acting like horriably ineffective tank design isn't part of the "flavor" of 40k.



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 02:19:35


Post by: Tygre


Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 03:17:05


Post by: AnomanderRake


Tygre wrote:
Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


Multi-melta sponsons? Lascannon sponsons?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 03:31:07


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Tygre wrote:
Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


I would also say the invention of the bazooka, panzershrek, panzerfaust and a whole host of infantry wielded anti-tank weapons also made shooting sponson weapons into a trench a pretty bad idea. And that's without bringing up the mechanical difficulties of sponsons. Given that 40k does have melta and krak weapons (even heavy mining equipment) that are at least as common as the mentioned WWII weaponry, I don't know if I would risk a tank (which are almost always consider holy relics of a bygone age) when I could just use infantry to make sure the trench is clear.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 03:35:04


Post by: Gadzilla666


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.


ohh absolutely, I mean the Lemen Russ is a HORRIABLE design. with all it's long flat surfaces.

it's why I find some of the criticism of the new Marine tanks (actually some of the criticism of many new vehicles) a bit puzzling as people nitpick how aweful the design is while acting like horriably ineffective tank design isn't part of the "flavor" of 40k.


I like my anachronistic WW1 derived Land Raiders. But I'll admit this thing isn't too bad. It's pretty much just a floating Predator. I'd still like it if it had treads.

Sorry if my little joke bugged you, but you have to admit that the sheer number of different weapons that a Repulsor can have is a bit silly, if for no other reason than how long it takes to roll them all. How many weapons can they have? Seven? Eight? Hell, my Fellblade only has six, and it makes up more than a quarter of a 2000 point list.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 03:45:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I like my anachronistic WW1 derived Land Raiders. But I'll admit this thing isn't too bad. It's pretty much just a floating Predator. I'd still like it if it had treads.
I completely agree. I like tanks in 40K not being realistic. Sponsons and low ground clearence? Oh no!

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sorry if my little joke bugged you, but you have to admit that the sheer number of different weapons that a Repulsor can have is a bit silly, if for no other reason than how long it takes to roll them all. How many weapons can they have? Seven? Eight?
That's why I don't like the Repulsor. It's just covered in guns. It's oversaturated and ends up an eyesore. This Gladiator seems far more restrained.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hell, my Fellblade only has six, and it makes up more than a quarter of a 2000 point list.
Do you get paid every time you mention your Fellblade?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 03:47:17


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Tygre wrote:Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


Not really.

First off, the engineering challenges to tank turret construction were still being considered in WWII. The inability to manufacture a sufficiently large turret to house the 75mm gun with adequate working space led to the creation of the M3 with the hull mount until the M4's turret problem could be resolved. Constructing the heavy gun turrets of a battleship is a completely different beast from constructing tank turrets.

Second, sponsons went away really fast, because they didn't actually offer a serious improvement in weapons capability and forced compromises that made the vehicle as a whole weaker, such as needing to be tall enough to fit the sponson within the height of the tank and needing to be big enough for sponson crew.

Finally, tanks have been progressively getting less festooned with guns, because guns require crew to operate them and don't meaningfully add to it's offensive capability.




Two things annoy me:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.

2: the fact that for some tanks, especially now, the secondary battery is more powerful than the primary weapon. Take, for example, a Leman Russ. The dedicated heavy antitank weapon mounted in the turret hits once for 1d6 damage, if equipped with multimeltas the sponson guns inflict 4 shots for 1d6+2. Why bother mounting the big gun if it's worse than a multimelta, why not just mount another multimelta, the multimelta is cheaper, smaller, lighter, more swift to maneuver, and would make for a better vehicle. This isn't actually because the Vanquisher AT Gun is weaker than a Multimelta in universe. This is because GW doesn't know how to do math and thinks that 1d6 shots for 1d3 damage at S8 AP2 is worse than 1 shot at 1d6 damage at S8 AP3 because the vanquisher gun rolls a D6 for damage, ignoring the fact that total damage onto target is a product of shots and damage.



BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.


ohh absolutely, I mean the Lemen Russ is a HORRIABLE design. with all it's long flat surfaces.

it's why I find some of the criticism of the new Marine tanks (actually some of the criticism of many new vehicles) a bit puzzling as people nitpick how aweful the design is while acting like horriably ineffective tank design isn't part of the "flavor" of 40k.



The leman russ is not well designed, but not for lacking sloped armor. It is abnormally tall, its internal proportions literally do not work, and it has 0 suspension travel so it will be limited to very slow speeds and be a very rough ride.


However, the lack of sloping isn't a concern. First off, the main glacis plate is sloped, and the sides are unsloped. This is the same as basically all tanks from the M4 to the M1. The whole sloped armor thing like the T-34 and Panther by and large fell out of favor uh... immediately after the war, because sloped armor on any surface other than the front is actually of net detriment. It cost internal volume, adds height, and adds weight for largely minimal protective gain.

In fact, for weight, sloped armor is no better than unsloped armor: think about it this way: if you have a square cross section of part of the side of your tank, the vertical panel has a length of 1 and the angled panel across the diagonal has a length of sqrt(2) [1.414]. The effective thickness of a sloped plate is trigonometrically computed as the thickness divided by the cosine of it's angle from vertical, so for a 45 degree angled plate you'd coincidentally also have sqrt(2) effective thickness.
In general, the panel length can be expressed as h/cos(theta) where h is the height of the plate to be armored and theta is the angle from vertical it's sloped at, and the effective armor thickness is t/cos(theta), where t is the plate thickness. Thus, it takes exactly as much weight to make up the added length of the plate as you save from it not having to be as thick, and the only way to actually be better armored for your weight is to have superior metallurgy. In addition, by having sloped armor, you lose half of that potential internal volume of the vehicle that that section would have had, and also narrow your turret ring which limits the size of your gun.

More relevantly, being tall is bad. It makes you a larger target and it costs weight with essentially no advantage.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 04:46:22


Post by: Tygre


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tygre wrote:Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


Not really.

First off, the engineering challenges to tank turret construction were still being considered in WWII. The inability to manufacture a sufficiently large turret to house the 75mm gun with adequate working space led to the creation of the M3 with the hull mount until the M4's turret problem could be resolved. Constructing the heavy gun turrets of a battleship is a completely different beast from constructing tank turrets.

My point was that the concept of turrets was clearly known. Yes I know the scale difference between warships and tanks requires different construction methods. The 75mm gun problem was that the early WW2 tank hulls were too small for the bigger guns. They didn't need just larger turrets, but larger turret rings.

Second, sponsons went away really fast, because they didn't actually offer a serious improvement in weapons capability and forced compromises that made the vehicle as a whole weaker, such as needing to be tall enough to fit the sponson within the height of the tank and needing to be big enough for sponson crew.

Yes they weren't used because nations were broke and went with small tanks. And more importantly trench warfare became less common.

Finally, tanks have been progressively getting less festooned with guns, because guns require crew to operate them and don't meaningfully add to it's offensive capability.


Two things annoy me:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.

Yes they annoy me too. I consider marine vehicles to be light support vehicles since they had man portable scale weaponry.

2: the fact that for some tanks, especially now, the secondary battery is more powerful than the primary weapon. Take, for example, a Leman Russ. The dedicated heavy antitank weapon mounted in the turret hits once for 1d6 damage, if equipped with multimeltas the sponson guns inflict 4 shots for 1d6+2. Why bother mounting the big gun if it's worse than a multimelta, why not just mount another multimelta, the multimelta is cheaper, smaller, lighter, more swift to maneuver, and would make for a better vehicle. This isn't actually because the Vanquisher AT Gun is weaker than a Multimelta in universe. This is because GW doesn't know how to do math and thinks that 1d6 shots for 1d3 damage at S8 AP2 is worse than 1 shot at 1d6 damage at S8 AP3 because the vanquisher gun rolls a D6 for damage, ignoring the fact that total damage onto target is a product of shots and damage.

[color=red] I agree that sponsons should not outgun the main gun on the tank. I see a use (fluff wise) for sponsons for anti infantry defensive use (read heavy bolter sponsons and Primaris alternates).


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.


ohh absolutely, I mean the Lemen Russ is a HORRIABLE design. with all it's long flat surfaces.

it's why I find some of the criticism of the new Marine tanks (actually some of the criticism of many new vehicles) a bit puzzling as people nitpick how aweful the design is while acting like horriably ineffective tank design isn't part of the "flavor" of 40k.



The leman russ is not well designed, but not for lacking sloped armor. It is abnormally tall, its internal proportions literally do not work, and it has 0 suspension travel so it will be limited to very slow speeds and be a very rough ride.


However, the lack of sloping isn't a concern. First off, the main glacis plate is sloped, and the sides are unsloped. This is the same as basically all tanks from the M4 to the M1. The whole sloped armor thing like the T-34 and Panther by and large fell out of favor uh... immediately after the war, because sloped armor on any surface other than the front is actually of net detriment. It cost internal volume, adds height, and adds weight for largely minimal protective gain.

In fact, for weight, sloped armor is no better than unsloped armor: think about it this way: if you have a square cross section of part of the side of your tank, the vertical panel has a length of 1 and the angled panel across the diagonal has a length of sqrt(2) [1.414]. The effective thickness of a sloped plate is trigonometrically computed as the thickness divided by the cosine of it's angle from vertical, so for a 45 degree angled plate you'd coincidentally also have sqrt(2) effective thickness.
In general, the panel length can be expressed as h/cos(theta) where h is the height of the plate to be armored and theta is the angle from vertical it's sloped at, and the effective armor thickness is t/cos(theta), where t is the plate thickness. Thus, it takes exactly as much weight to make up the added length of the plate as you save from it not having to be as thick, and the only way to actually be better armored for your weight is to have superior metallurgy. In addition, by having sloped armor, you lose half of that potential internal volume of the vehicle that that section would have had, and also narrow your turret ring which limits the size of your gun.

More relevantly, being tall is bad. It makes you a larger target and it costs weight with essentially no advantage.


My point is when dealing with trenches etc defensive sponson weapons have their uses. If a guy can pop out of a trench and shoot you with a bazooka it is handy to have a MG (not AT gun) that can aim down. In manoeuvre warfare not as important. In the notes designers left for the early rhomboid tanks it was mentioned that they did consider a turret, but that would make the tank too top heavy and they need a weapon that could shoot down into the trenches.

Of course the biggest problem with sponsons is it makes the tank too tall.

I appear to have derailed this thread my apologies.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 05:14:00


Post by: BrianDavion


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tygre wrote:Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


Not really.

First off, the engineering challenges to tank turret construction were still being considered in WWII. The inability to manufacture a sufficiently large turret to house the 75mm gun with adequate working space led to the creation of the M3 with the hull mount until the M4's turret problem could be resolved. Constructing the heavy gun turrets of a battleship is a completely different beast from constructing tank turrets.

Second, sponsons went away really fast, because they didn't actually offer a serious improvement in weapons capability and forced compromises that made the vehicle as a whole weaker, such as needing to be tall enough to fit the sponson within the height of the tank and needing to be big enough for sponson crew.

Finally, tanks have been progressively getting less festooned with guns, because guns require crew to operate them and don't meaningfully add to it's offensive capability.




Two things annoy me:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.




this has long annoyed me too. luckly GW seems to be cluing in here the first change on this order was saw was the predator's autocanon being made differant from a hand held autocanon. and vehicle plasma canons are now "heavy plasma canons"

and of course most new vehicles have their own weapons, and not a "infantry gun glued onto a turret"


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 07:58:44


Post by: JohnnyHell


They look cool. It’s a floating tacticool tank. Love it.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 08:13:32


Post by: JawRippa


My personal gripe with it is that it is an anti-grav. Boxy design fits rhinos, but oh boy, it would look much better on tracks...


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 08:26:22


Post by: nekooni


 JohnnyHell wrote:
They look cool. It’s a floating tacticool tank. Love it.


And that's exactly the point of it


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 09:46:58


Post by: Galas


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.



Thanks for saying it. Thats one of the things I most hate from many many GW vehicle weapons. They are just normal heavy weapons. Like, what? Why I'm paying a ton of points for the privilege of having all my heavy weapons straped on a single, expensive box instead of diversed in my infantry squads? It makes tanks look pointless, and it makes them compete for the same space as squads of heavy weapon teams, so one or the other will be more efficient at any given time, like predators vs devastators.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 09:59:50


Post by: Tygre


The first Predator Annihilator was (fluff-wise) was a regular Predator which was converted to take two of the man portable lascannons in the turret.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 11:09:34


Post by: Eonfuzz


Should've been piloted by an Aeldari, flying anti gravity vehicles lmfao...


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 11:13:10


Post by: Dysartes


 JohnnyHell wrote:
They look cool. It’s a floating tacticool tank.


Can we send it back to Corvus Belli, please?

As with every Steroid Boy tank so far, the damn thing should be on tracks, not floating.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 11:33:23


Post by: Tyel


I like it a lot more than the basic Repulsor, which I'm afraid I agree was just "do you like guns with your guns?" The executioner has grown on me a bit - but still seems over the top.

I tend to think aesthetically "this is a tank, it has one big tank gun" is better - but the rules recognising this have often been poor, due to GW's obsession of "one gun=one shot the end". So you end up needing bags of rules to make it work.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 11:38:55


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Love the mini.

Too bad GW nerfed vehicles into the ground.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 11:47:58


Post by: Rosebuddy


I don't mind that it's ugly but I do think it's kind of charmless. I see what they're going for but eeh, eeeh.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 12:36:58


Post by: psipso


I'm also not sold with the hovertank idea. For Eldar and Tau it looks cool because they have more round or alien look aesthetic. But imperium ones that are basically metal boxes look like more flying shoebox instead of tanks. Imao this is the same problem that the storm raven has.

I agree that the model will look way better on track instead of grav thingys. However, I'm afraid that is already late for the whole primaris vehicle range to consider this.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 12:37:18


Post by: SturmOgre


 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Tygre wrote:
Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.


I would also say the invention of the bazooka, panzershrek, panzerfaust and a whole host of infantry wielded anti-tank weapons also made shooting sponson weapons into a trench a pretty bad idea. And that's without bringing up the mechanical difficulties of sponsons. Given that 40k does have melta and krak weapons (even heavy mining equipment) that are at least as common as the mentioned WWII weaponry, I don't know if I would risk a tank (which are almost always consider holy relics of a bygone age) when I could just use infantry to make sure the trench is clear.


Not to mention that most sponsons we see don't appear to have much in the way of vertical movement in the first place.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 12:41:14


Post by: the_scotsman


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry


Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.


ohh absolutely, I mean the Lemen Russ is a HORRIABLE design. with all it's long flat surfaces.

it's why I find some of the criticism of the new Marine tanks (actually some of the criticism of many new vehicles) a bit puzzling as people nitpick how aweful the design is while acting like horriably ineffective tank design isn't part of the "flavor" of 40k.



I don't nitpick the design from an imaginary functional perspective. I am a mechanical engineer, I know NOOOOOOOOONE of the vehicles in 40k would actually fething work, mostly I just think that they look like ugly lumpy misshapen turds.

I also think Leman Russes do. And rhino-based marine tanks. The only marine vehicle I've ever felt like that aesthetic worked on was the Dreadnought, because of the whole body horror/contrast with the sleek functional walkers of other sci-fi settings angle of it.

The primaris vehicles are just more offensive than the base rhino vehicles because they stick all the extra greeblies and antennas and random boxes and crap all over them.

There's also the fact that every marine visible on these models looks completely static that makes it look even more like a cheap GI Joe toy than something I'd pay whatever 90 fething dollars for or whatever stupid-ass price they're asking for this thing. Pilots on Necron vehicles have more personality than marine vehicle operators, they're looking at the screens, they're pushing the buttons, they're pulling the levers. The only marine vehicle I can come up with where the pilots are doing something other than "sitting looking straight forward" or "arms straight out holding handle looking straight forward" is the scout transport thingy.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 13:16:50


Post by: BrianDavion


even the dreadnought isn't a very good design. ignoring the practicality of a combat walker at all they have a few issues. to start with the elgs are too short, the best a standard dreadnought could proably manage is a waddle (the redemptor BTW addresses this nicely) I honestly suspect the pilot would struggle to control the thing though MIU, a more human shape would have been more practical.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 13:26:22


Post by: jaredb


I at first wasn't a fan. but I really like the look of the laser destroyer variant. I'd be fine with a few of those as part of a mechanized force!


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 13:50:17


Post by: mrFickle


I think the new primaris vehicles are just lacking a bit of character and look a bit uninspired. Which is a shame considering how cool the new primaris models are.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 14:17:36


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Is it wrong of me to think that Eldar vehicles look and feel more like reasonable real tanks than Imperial ones do?

I think the Fire Prism hits all the major points:
1) All-terrain capability (almost literally an aircraft)
2) High operational mobility (one of the only tanks in the game that can deep strike from the upper atmosphere)
3) A single, large, turret mounted primary armament that outclasses any man-portable weapon that I am aware of
4) The ability to switch "ammunition types" (or laser fire modes in this case) for that single primary armament, which still gives it flexibility against different target types despite being only a single cannon
5) A small secondary weapon that would still be a heavy weapon to a person, but is effectively a defensive weapon to said tank (shuriken cannon!).
6) The ability to link targeting data and fire protocols with other tanks of the same type (indicating a computerized fire control system and excellent communications gear)
7) Defensive systems that extend beyond sheer thickness of passive armor

I think if you gave WWII -> Modern designers 40k technology, they'd come up with something more analogous to the Fire Prism than to the Repulsor or Leman Russ.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 14:18:40


Post by: Brutus_Apex


As with all things Primaris, it's way too high tech/tacticool.

It's going to take a lot of cutting and converting to make it looks like it belongs to 40K.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 14:21:39


Post by: Not Online!!!


except if you hire the germans, then they'd build you the ratte.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 14:27:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Not Online!!! wrote:
except if you hire the germans, then they'd build you the ratte.


Well, they'd try to build you a ratte, fail catastrophically, and then steal the T-34 expy and overengineer that. So you'd probably end up with a Hammerhead instead of a Fire Prism.

"Look, it has extra armor (13 wounds)!" Well, yes, but it lost a good bit of mobility and cannot deep strike...
"Well, it has a computerized fire control system!" Ok, sure, but I'd rather concentrate fire within the same platoon rather than reaching out to supporting elements with markerlights that aren't as reliable! That flexibility means it's worse in output than the Fire Prism source material as well!
"Don't worry, it can switch ammunition types! It has a RAIL GUN!!" Well, the recoil is so high now that it can't shoot twice, even if it stays perfectly still, because the gunner can't lay the gun between shots as easily...


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 14:37:17


Post by: LunarSol


mrFickle wrote:
I think the new primaris vehicles are just lacking a bit of character and look a bit uninspired. Which is a shame considering how cool the new primaris models are.


Agreed. I vastly prefer the Primaris line, but the treads are way more impressive looking than the hover design.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 15:22:44


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
except if you hire the germans, then they'd build you the ratte.


Well, they'd try to build you a ratte, fail catastrophically, and then steal the T-34 expy and overengineer that. So you'd probably end up with a Hammerhead instead of a Fire Prism.

"Look, it has extra armor (13 wounds)!" Well, yes, but it lost a good bit of mobility and cannot deep strike...
"Well, it has a computerized fire control system!" Ok, sure, but I'd rather concentrate fire within the same platoon rather than reaching out to supporting elements with markerlights that aren't as reliable! That flexibility means it's worse in output than the Fire Prism source material as well!
"Don't worry, it can switch ammunition types! It has a RAIL GUN!!" Well, the recoil is so high now that it can't shoot twice, even if it stays perfectly still, because the gunner can't lay the gun between shots as easily...


You forgot the final step:

"Then we slap oerlikon 20 mm cannons on it and call it a day!!!!!"



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/19 23:16:30


Post by: generalchaos34


I try not to compare the idea of modern or real tanks into the game because......

1: Art trumps science in 40k, its a game that features BDSM lawnmower chariots anything goes really.

2: We don't really know just how weird the futures understanding of technology has changed. We know they worship machines and fear change, etc. I like to think of the idea that the screw was invented several hundred years before the screwdriver. That means sometimes what we assume to be logical is in fact not to other cultures. For instance, the old lore stated the the Leman Russ was some sort of repurposed agricultural machinery, and the Knight suits are meant for logging and mining. So that may also explain why they are....weird. Culturally speaking they may think that sponsons are the best thing ever and feel the need to slap them on everything. Im sure the ones on a russ may be computer targeted and if not you just cram a human in it, theres always more men then there are machines.

3. It looks cool. I for one love the new look of primaris stuff because it represents clean lines, cool bits, and a focus on reoccuring themes and lines across the new range to bring it all together, and the fact that none of them are the ancient and storied warmachines of the past and are instead new inventions they do not possess some of the usual embellishments. So yeah....it looks cool.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 00:36:08


Post by: Ice_can


 LunarSol wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
I think the new primaris vehicles are just lacking a bit of character and look a bit uninspired. Which is a shame considering how cool the new primaris models are.


Agreed. I vastly prefer the Primaris line, but the treads are way more impressive looking than the hover design.

To behonest though the main problem is really the aesthetic someone decided for the repulsor plates.
Seriously whats up with the sudden need to put crash bumpers on everything that look like they would bend if you hit even a lamppost. These are supposed to be tanks you can charge through walls with etc.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 00:51:53


Post by: the_scotsman


BrianDavion wrote:
even the dreadnought isn't a very good design. ignoring the practicality of a combat walker at all they have a few issues. to start with the elgs are too short, the best a standard dreadnought could proably manage is a waddle (the redemptor BTW addresses this nicely) I honestly suspect the pilot would struggle to control the thing though MIU, a more human shape would have been more practical.


Doesn't matter, do not care about practical. A waddling, brutish, blunt box with a sarcophagus stuck in the middle and a stubby brutal cannon jutting out of the side is to a sleek sci-fi walker what a space marine is to an imperial stormtrooper from starwars.

That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 01:03:20


Post by: Argive


I still prefer tracked SM vehicles.
Gime the rhino and LR chassis any day.

This just looks like it should be on tracks..
The turrets and guns look neat though.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 07:05:00


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is it wrong of me to think that Eldar vehicles look and feel more like reasonable real tanks than Imperial ones do?

I think the Fire Prism hits all the major points:
1) All-terrain capability (almost literally an aircraft)
2) High operational mobility (one of the only tanks in the game that can deep strike from the upper atmosphere)
3) A single, large, turret mounted primary armament that outclasses any man-portable weapon that I am aware of
4) The ability to switch "ammunition types" (or laser fire modes in this case) for that single primary armament, which still gives it flexibility against different target types despite being only a single cannon
5) A small secondary weapon that would still be a heavy weapon to a person, but is effectively a defensive weapon to said tank (shuriken cannon!).
6) The ability to link targeting data and fire protocols with other tanks of the same type (indicating a computerized fire control system and excellent communications gear)
7) Defensive systems that extend beyond sheer thickness of passive armor

I think if you gave WWII -> Modern designers 40k technology, they'd come up with something more analogous to the Fire Prism than to the Repulsor or Leman Russ.


To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 14:02:58


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is it wrong of me to think that Eldar vehicles look and feel more like reasonable real tanks than Imperial ones do?

I think the Fire Prism hits all the major points:
1) All-terrain capability (almost literally an aircraft)
2) High operational mobility (one of the only tanks in the game that can deep strike from the upper atmosphere)
3) A single, large, turret mounted primary armament that outclasses any man-portable weapon that I am aware of
4) The ability to switch "ammunition types" (or laser fire modes in this case) for that single primary armament, which still gives it flexibility against different target types despite being only a single cannon
5) A small secondary weapon that would still be a heavy weapon to a person, but is effectively a defensive weapon to said tank (shuriken cannon!).
6) The ability to link targeting data and fire protocols with other tanks of the same type (indicating a computerized fire control system and excellent communications gear)
7) Defensive systems that extend beyond sheer thickness of passive armor

I think if you gave WWII -> Modern designers 40k technology, they'd come up with something more analogous to the Fire Prism than to the Repulsor or Leman Russ.


To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.


Yes, but then it forgot how to use them while the Fire Prism retained the ability to change munition types.

If you want to change munition types as an Imperial Guard officer, better order another tank. And hope you don't need antitank shells because the Vanquisher is pants.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 14:05:18


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 16:38:49


Post by: Insectum7


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?
Nope.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 16:54:04


Post by: Karol


G.I Joe tanks look surreal, at least the one I had. the marine stuff at least as far as rhino and land raider based stuff just looks modern day armour with wierd sized weapon stuck on them.

The marine flyers and the anti tank guns look very G.I Joe though. I think there is a good chance they started the whole idea of changing stuff from looking kind of a realistic, to lets build a Cobra Septic Tank.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:06:51


Post by: Breton


mrFickle wrote:
On the Warhammer Community there is a preview of the gladiator, the primaris version of the rhino and predator, although some load puts look a bit like a land raider.

What do you think? Cos I think it’s an ugly model personally. There are so many edges on these new vehicles and they stock paint job is vibrant edge highlighting. Too much for me.


The valiant and the reaper aren’t bad. The Lancer is.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:20:41


Post by: Kanluwen


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?
Nope.

They all absolutely do when painted in the Ultramarines toy blue.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:26:00


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is it wrong of me to think that Eldar vehicles look and feel more like reasonable real tanks than Imperial ones do?

I think the Fire Prism hits all the major points:
1) All-terrain capability (almost literally an aircraft)
2) High operational mobility (one of the only tanks in the game that can deep strike from the upper atmosphere)
3) A single, large, turret mounted primary armament that outclasses any man-portable weapon that I am aware of
4) The ability to switch "ammunition types" (or laser fire modes in this case) for that single primary armament, which still gives it flexibility against different target types despite being only a single cannon
5) A small secondary weapon that would still be a heavy weapon to a person, but is effectively a defensive weapon to said tank (shuriken cannon!).
6) The ability to link targeting data and fire protocols with other tanks of the same type (indicating a computerized fire control system and excellent communications gear)
7) Defensive systems that extend beyond sheer thickness of passive armor

I think if you gave WWII -> Modern designers 40k technology, they'd come up with something more analogous to the Fire Prism than to the Repulsor or Leman Russ.


To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.


Yes, but then it forgot how to use them while the Fire Prism retained the ability to change munition types.

If you want to change munition types as an Imperial Guard officer, better order another tank. And hope you don't need antitank shells because the Vanquisher is pants.


I believe the Leman Russ Battle Cannon's profile is actually intended to represent the combined effect of HE and APCBC-HE shells.

The HE shell was a S8 AP3 large blast that rolled twice and picked the lowest [remember, the S of blast effects was halved at the time], while the APCHE shell lost the blast but rolled twice and selected the highest for penetration.

Thus, the standard profile of S8 AP3 Large Blast w/ 2d6b1 for penetration would be basically assuming that the tank fired the right ammunition at whatever target you're hitting.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:27:17


Post by: SecondTime


You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:36:41


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


SecondTime wrote:
You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.


There were specific optional rules for choosing the loadouts of your Leman Russ tanks in IA 1

You can choose between HE, APCBC-HE, Starshells, Smoke, and HE-Incendiary for the Leman Russ
The Vanquisher could equip APFSDS and gun-launched top-attack HEAT missiles, and IIRC the codex provided an HE shell
The Conqueror has laser-guided munitions, and the Demolisher had an option for a super-heavy HEAT shell.



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:37:47


Post by: SecondTime


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.


There were specific optional rules for choosing the loadouts of your Leman Russ tanks in IA 1

You can choose between HE, APCBC-HE, Starshells, Smoke, and HE-Incendiary for the Leman Russ
The Vanquisher could equip APFSDS and gun-launched top-attack HEAT missiles, and IIRC the codex provided an HE shell
The Conqueror has laser-guided munitions, and the Demolisher had an option for a super-heavy HEAT shell.



So FW was aware at some point. You think current GW actually knows any of this?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:47:58


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


SecondTime wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
SecondTime wrote:
You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.


There were specific optional rules for choosing the loadouts of your Leman Russ tanks in IA 1

You can choose between HE, APCBC-HE, Starshells, Smoke, and HE-Incendiary for the Leman Russ
The Vanquisher could equip APFSDS and gun-launched top-attack HEAT missiles, and IIRC the codex provided an HE shell
The Conqueror has laser-guided munitions, and the Demolisher had an option for a super-heavy HEAT shell.



So FW was aware at some point. You think current GW actually knows any of this?


Probably. The fact that tank guns fire different types of munitions against different targets is reasonably well known, and it's sufficiently well known by them that they implement it for some other weapons like anything that has Frag or Krak shells, or the railgun or fire prism.

It's just irrelevant to model in the game for tanks like the Leman Russ. At the level we play the game at, it's more appropriate to assume that the tank crew selects the right shell than it is to implement rules for every type of shell there could be.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 17:55:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Is it wrong of me to think that Eldar vehicles look and feel more like reasonable real tanks than Imperial ones do?

I think the Fire Prism hits all the major points:
1) All-terrain capability (almost literally an aircraft)
2) High operational mobility (one of the only tanks in the game that can deep strike from the upper atmosphere)
3) A single, large, turret mounted primary armament that outclasses any man-portable weapon that I am aware of
4) The ability to switch "ammunition types" (or laser fire modes in this case) for that single primary armament, which still gives it flexibility against different target types despite being only a single cannon
5) A small secondary weapon that would still be a heavy weapon to a person, but is effectively a defensive weapon to said tank (shuriken cannon!).
6) The ability to link targeting data and fire protocols with other tanks of the same type (indicating a computerized fire control system and excellent communications gear)
7) Defensive systems that extend beyond sheer thickness of passive armor

I think if you gave WWII -> Modern designers 40k technology, they'd come up with something more analogous to the Fire Prism than to the Repulsor or Leman Russ.


To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.


Yes, but then it forgot how to use them while the Fire Prism retained the ability to change munition types.

If you want to change munition types as an Imperial Guard officer, better order another tank. And hope you don't need antitank shells because the Vanquisher is pants.


I believe the Leman Russ Battle Cannon's profile is actually intended to represent the combined effect of HE and APCBC-HE shells.

The HE shell was a S8 AP3 large blast that rolled twice and picked the lowest [remember, the S of blast effects was halved at the time], while the APCHE shell lost the blast but rolled twice and selected the highest for penetration.

Thus, the standard profile of S8 AP3 Large Blast w/ 2d6b1 for penetration would be basically assuming that the tank fired the right ammunition at whatever target you're hitting.


The problem is that a single profile (what we have now and had from GW without FW since 5th at least) doesn't reflect that very well imo. But I think that's subjective. The Fire Prism's multiple profiles help a lot more to differentiate AT vs AP.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 18:00:55


Post by: Insectum7


 Kanluwen wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?
Nope.

They all absolutely do when painted in the Ultramarines toy blue.
A: Easy fix to that.
B: Still less so than the Primaris vehicles.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 18:58:02


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?
Nope.

They all absolutely do when painted in the Ultramarines toy blue.
A: Easy fix to that.
B: Still less so than the Primaris vehicles.


Spoiler:


I am not seeing these differences when I look at mine. Firstborn and Primaris tanks have a lot of the same issues coming from the fact they are basically the same size and shape. I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore. So grav becomes a non-issue for me since there is a space marine design precedent already set.

I have some (though not as much as Inquisitor Lord Katherine) knowledge of actual tanks. And like learning how the Moon doesn't actually follow someone, some the magic is gone and no take backs. So most of my issues with Primaris tanks were already present in previous 40k tanks already covered in this thread. I do find it kinda funny that Primaris tanks are suddenly G.I. Joe/Action Man when Firstborn are not. They are both equally silly to me, though; not always in the same ways. I mean neither look at all function beyond a very, very quick sideways glance even with timey-wimey future tech. I suppose the Primaris ones can seem funnier as they seem to be trying harder to be 'serious military vehicles', but I think that has to do more with GW having the capability to do it more than a design shift of any sort. I can say I think Gladiator is moving toward a better design compared to the Repulsor.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 21:11:07


Post by: Insectum7


^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

And as weird as sponsons are, they at least can point forward in the direction of attack, unlike most of the weapons on those.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 23:51:31


Post by: BrianDavion


 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/20 23:57:10


Post by: AnomanderRake


BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.


The LOGIC of having tiny little mini-turrets with a 45-degree field of fire pointing in every different direction only works when you're playing a game that's so abstract you can shoot them all in the same direction.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 00:31:20


Post by: Insectum7


BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.
It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 00:46:55


Post by: Eonfuzz


 Insectum7 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.
It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".


Remember when it was orky to slap guns in random places facing random directions?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 00:54:26


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

And as weird as sponsons are, they at least can point forward in the direction of attack, unlike most of the weapons on those.


Fair enough. So it's more the repulsor frame and less the gladiator frame?

To be honest if the data sheet gave me the option I would never take the side and rear turret weapons on either repulsor frame. That's good part of the reason I like the Gladiator more. It cuts down the largely extraneous weapons down considerably to main gun, side turret guns and pintle stubber. Though again, if I could drop the side turret guns on the Gladiator, I probably would.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 01:06:22


Post by: Insectum7


 Eonfuzz wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.
It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".


Remember when it was orky to slap guns in random places facing random directions?
100%. And I'm actually sorta ok with jauntily built additions to SM vehicles in the spirit of auxiliarry Storm Bolters that are bolted on after the fact. But the idea that the tank comes out of the factory built with "door guns" is just wonky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

And as weird as sponsons are, they at least can point forward in the direction of attack, unlike most of the weapons on those.


Fair enough. So it's more the repulsor frame and less the gladiator frame?

To be honest if the data sheet gave me the option I would never take the side and rear turret weapons on either repulsor frame. That's good part of the reason I like the Gladiator more. It cuts down the largely extraneous weapons down considerably to main gun, side turret guns and pintle stubber. Though again, if I could drop the side turret guns on the Gladiator, I probably would.
Gladiator is better than the Repulsor, but it still comes across as a sort of kiddiefied Predator. The detailing looks extraneous and decorative/exaggerated, while the Predator looks very simple and practical in comparison.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 01:20:19


Post by: Voss


Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore.


Curious about this, because if you put tracks on the two tanks you've got pictured, they'd be a lot like land raider's tracks. They'd very clearly go where the two big front 'skids' are, except recessed into the armor, and would run along the bottom (you'd pop off the side skids, and extend armor under the side doors), and replace the jet engines, which is where the tracks would feed back into the armor.

Both the rhino chassis and the land raider has the same kind of setup, though a slightly taller armored side (or rather, the repulsor cuts it short to stuff the antigrav skids underneath).

Not speaking to realism at all, just the overall design of a relatively narrow central hull sandwiched between armored side-sections.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 02:02:36


Post by: BrianDavion


 Insectum7 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.
It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".


the older tanks didn't do it so it's automaticly bad?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 02:24:28


Post by: Insectum7


BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.
It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".


the older tanks didn't do it so it's automaticly bad?
No. It just looks stupid and like a kid designed it.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 02:31:10


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


Voss wrote:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore.


Curious about this, because if you put tracks on the two tanks you've got pictured, they'd be a lot like land raider's tracks. They'd very clearly go where the two big front 'skids' are, except recessed into the armor, and would run along the bottom (you'd pop off the side skids, and extend armor under the side doors), and replace the jet engines, which is where the tracks would feed back into the armor.

Both the rhino chassis and the land raider has the same kind of setup, though a slightly taller armored side (or rather, the repulsor cuts it short to stuff the antigrav skids underneath).

Not speaking to realism at all, just the overall design of a relatively narrow central hull sandwiched between armored side-sections.


I really don't like the way Land Raider and Rhino-frame tanks have the WWI tracks running along the outer side, or just about, of the vehicle chassis. Which is where the Primaris tanks would also have to place it like you describe or else remove the side doors. Which if I had my druthers, I would put a more modern looking set of tracks and basically halve the height of the chassis. Something a closer to the Leopard 2 MBT (spoiler photo for reference). Also note, the Leopard 2 reference was only a quick search to have at least a basic visual model to demonstrate some basic concepts of what I would want. At very least, place the tracks like they are on the Sherman M4 tank. However, I think even if GW somehow 'space marine-afied' it, I don't think what I am looking for would ever really fit space marines and would likely read more as generic sci-fi tank. I would guess would get even more push back than grav tanks as criticism that they don't look 40k at all, and I would be forced to agree.

Spoiler:


Honestly, not being able to move away from WWI style track placement has me thinking that grav plates are the next best thing for me. So while I am not a fan of the grav element. I am more a fan of it than where the tracks would have to be placed otherwise. So I think I mostly get the proponents of wanting the tracks, I just don't agree and see grav plates as an okay compromise for what I want and what space marine vehicles have to look like to keep their aesthetic.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 04:03:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I was today years old when I found out the Eyesore Mk.II had little Storm Bolter mini-turrets on the back of its turret.

Yikes...


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 06:08:57


Post by: Either/Or


The numerous weapons on the repulsor and executioner would seem not so ridiculous in previous editions of 40K when weapons had firing arcs and if all the little grenade launchers were some abstract defensive system. I think the way they are painted highlights them a bit too much as well, like the grenade boxes get painted a contrasting color so look extra busy. That being said the pintle mount should have just been the stubbed, the onslaught cannon looks a bit much. Same goes for the coaxial onslaught cannon on the executioner, though that is improved when converted to a short barrel.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 07:09:38


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I was today years old when I found out the Eyesore Mk.II had little Storm Bolter mini-turrets on the back of its turret.

Yikes...
Yo dawg, I heard you like turrets. . .


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 07:50:29


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I was today years old when I found out the Eyesore Mk.II had little Storm Bolter mini-turrets on the back of its turret.

Yikes...


yeah not really sure what the sense behind those are the basic repulsors stormbolters at least have some logic to em


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 08:04:24


Post by: Horla


As someone who doesn’t have a breeze about real world tanks and is into 40K purely for the OTT boomsplosions, I don’t mind the marine tanks (though prefer the tracked ones as I feel that hover/flying tanks should be saved for other factions like Eldar or Necrons to make them more alien/futuristic).


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 09:32:55


Post by: Galas


I can understand people not liking primaris vehicles.

But how people can defend marine old vehicles as better? I'll admit I'm not a vehicle kinda guy, thats why I started with Tau (Ironically, I started to use infantry and suits, and ended up loving the devilfish and hammerhead), and my custodes and dark angels are basically just infantry, bikers, terminators and dreadnoughts. But consistently Space Marine vehicles have been the most boring and ugly vehicles in all of the game.

You have this super elite tactical force of super humans that work in fast-lighting strikes in the center of the enemy forces and their vehicles are... boring box-like vehicles based around some of the cheapest and worst vehicle designs of history?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 10:52:59


Post by: Insectum7


 Galas wrote:
I can understand people not liking primaris vehicles.

But how people can defend marine old vehicles as better? I'll admit I'm not a vehicle kinda guy, thats why I started with Tau (Ironically, I started to use infantry and suits, and ended up loving the devilfish and hammerhead), and my custodes and dark angels are basically just infantry, bikers, terminators and dreadnoughts. But consistently Space Marine vehicles have been the most boring and ugly vehicles in all of the game.

You have this super elite tactical force of super humans that work in fast-lighting strikes in the center of the enemy forces and their vehicles are... boring box-like vehicles based around some of the cheapest and worst vehicle designs of history?
The Rhino is a simple metal box. Basic, effective, easy to maintain. Classic Marine vehicles are there to deliver and support the infantry, vs. IG infantry being there to support the tanks. All tanks using the Rhino Chassis are just variations on the metal box. Pretty straight forward, very grounded in "reality", and fairly crude in a way that reflects the mindset of much of the Imperium.

The Land Raider is the creme de la creme. It's a WW1 tank with laser cannons and doors on the front. It embodies the anachronistic thinking of 40K, particularly marines, and is unique. It speaks of decision making that is prioritizing things very differently than our modern "western" armies, and looks purpose built to smash into buildings to unload marines directly into brutal CC assaults.


The Primaris hover tanks are pretty generic sci-fi tacticool in comparison, and the proportions of their details make them look more toy-like.
Spoiler:




Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 11:44:04


Post by: Galas


I mean, I'm not defending primaris vehicles. I dislike them just as much as I dislike the old marine vehicles. I have a single rhino in my collection and thats for use with my Sisters of Silence.

At the end of the day I cannot say I really see one better than the other. All the stuff you are saying about the old vehicles I know a guy that is really passionate about the new primaris ones can come and do the same for the repulsor or the impulsor.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 14:55:29


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?
Nope.
Huh, I didn't realise you were the_scotsman.

But, as you feel the need to jump in and answer a question for someone else, I'll give the same response?
"Why not?"

And please be empirical here, none of this talk of "kiddifying" when I could say exactly the same about the older tanks, which are equally as kid-friendly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The gun over each door is "kid-logic".
Why is that "kid logic"? The Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer does this too - it has guns covering each exit, as well as grenade launchers (even if it functions differently in game - I would prefer for the Repulsor grenade launchers to function more like the Crusader/Redeemer style).

Galas wrote:I can understand people not liking primaris vehicles.

But how people can defend marine old vehicles as better?
Exactly my point. If you dislike Marine vehicles for being boxy and flat and looking like toys, I totally get that - but that's an issue which covers the entire Space Marine vehicle range, pretty much.

Now, I actually quite like the Astartes vehicle aesthetic, which is why I like the Primaris tanks, because they also fit it, by what I value in the older Astartes aesthetic.
You have this super elite tactical force of super humans that work in fast-lighting strikes in the center of the enemy forces and their vehicles are... boring box-like vehicles based around some of the cheapest and worst vehicle designs of history?
See, for me, that's part of why I love the Primaris stuff so much more than I do things like the Whirlwind, Hunter/Stalker, etc etc - because the Primaris stuff all seems to have a stronger sense of motion, of battlefield flexibility. They feel like they're actually built to get stuck in to the fighting and support the infantry, rather than Rhinos which seem only to exist as transport tin cans (which Drop Pods feel more suitable for) or the artillery tanks (where tank powered artillery just feels off in the Space Marine arsenal).

For me, it's things like the Razorback, Land Raiders, Predator, Vindicator, Repulsors, Gladiators, and Drop Pods which fit the Astartes brief the best.

Galas wrote:At the end of the day I cannot say I really see one better than the other. All the stuff you are saying about the old vehicles I know a guy that is really passionate about the new primaris ones can come and do the same for the repulsor or the impulsor.
Absolutely.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 15:03:34


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 Insectum7 wrote:
The Rhino is a simple metal box. Basic, effective, easy to maintain. Classic Marine vehicles are there to deliver and support the infantry, vs. IG infantry being there to support the tanks. All tanks using the Rhino Chassis are just variations on the metal box. Pretty straight forward, very grounded in "reality", and fairly crude in a way that reflects the mindset of much of the Imperium.

The Land Raider is the creme de la creme. It's a WW1 tank with laser cannons and doors on the front. It embodies the anachronistic thinking of 40K, particularly marines, and is unique. It speaks of decision making that is prioritizing things very differently than our modern "western" armies, and looks purpose built to smash into buildings to unload marines directly into brutal CC assaults.


The Primaris hover tanks are pretty generic sci-fi tacticool in comparison, and the proportions of their details make them look more toy-like.


You could say generic for those hover/grav tanks, but I see it more using elements honed by evolution of design. I see WWI much like Cambrian life explosion where evolution was much less restricted on what could survive and what couldn't. At that time all manner of adaptations were tried out much like tank design. However, by mid-WWII, a good number of common adaptations tested on the battlefield showed what works and what doesn't. So as tank design (like life) began to converge on many similar elements regardless of place of design and manufacture. That's why they look so similar, and the Repulsor sticks out like a sore thumb.

I get that IoM design is supposed to be backward. Though space marine tanks are so backward that who ever did design them would have had to purposely made them bad for sake of being bad. They are terrible tank designs and even worse industrial vehicles/tractors. The Rhino looks to be a simple metal box. However, that is largely because the timey-wimey sci-fi tech to make it work is all hidden. Like a pocket watch, just because it has a simple care doesn't mean is has simple mechanisms inside. The tracks themselves would be a nightmare to maintain. The lack of clearance and suspension would make in ineffective even as a snowcat even if you didn't care about the quality of the ride let alone as a military vehicle. By rights, they should have shaken themselves apart after a decade of easy parade service.

Which is fine. Warhammer 40k goes out of its way to be obviously not realistic in nearly every single way. So crazy supre unrealistic vehicles should be expected. I do agree with Galas. I am not really defending Primaris vehicles. Or at least, only softly defending them if I am. To me, they are no better, and no worst, than the Firstborn vehicles that can before. They all look ugly and toy like to me because at the end of the day both groups are based on the same highly flawed design that stands on no kinda of scrutiny. None of the design flaws even approach anything close to the Rule of Cool. In fact, move further away from cool being basically boxes. Be it simple plain ones or ones cover in guns and gribblies. The Rhinos, Predators and Land Raider I have in my CSM are there to round out my army just as Repulsors, Impulsors and Gladiators will in my Primaris army. I don't really care for design of any of them as they are all equally dumb and toy-like.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 18:27:02


Post by: Insectum7


^Well, if you want to talk "realistic", I believe it was Inq Lord Katherine who pointed out that the Rhino and Predator are basically the M113 and the version of the M113 with a turret. (I forget what it's called). The current Predator turret is almost identical to that tank iirc. Those tanks are basically real world design, with some slight additional armor "slabulation" for style. The goofy part is the sponsons, which have a historical basis and imo bely a crude mind set.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 19:42:32


Post by: epronovost


 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well, if you want to talk "realistic", I believe it was Inq Lord Katherine who pointed out that the Rhino and Predator are basically the M113 and the version of the M113 with a turret. (I forget what it's called). The current Predator turret is almost identical to that tank iirc. Those tanks are basically real world design, with some slight additional armor "slabulation" for style. The goofy part is the sponsons, which have a historical basis and imo bely a crude mind set.


To me, the only difference between the new Space Marine tanks and the old ones is that the new ones don't have tracks, but crude grav engines. They basically look the same. Sure, hte gguns got a bit bigger (which make sense they are tanks afterall) and they have those small missile packs that could look like counter-measure flares but actually are guided weapons. They are the same stuff as before. I prefer tracks personnaly since the Imperium anti-grav tech was supposed to be significantaly inferior to that of Taus and Eldars, but else they are pretty much the same basic design in bold primary colors just like the Marines themselves.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 20:01:25


Post by: Insectum7


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?
Nope.
Huh, I didn't realise you were the_scotsman.

But, as you feel the need to jump in and answer a question for someone else, I'll give the same response?
"Why not?"

And please be empirical here, none of this talk of "kiddifying" when I could say exactly the same about the older tanks, which are equally as kid-friendly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The gun over each door is "kid-logic".
Why is that "kid logic"? The Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer does this too - it has guns covering each exit, as well as grenade launchers (even if it functions differently in game - I would prefer for the Repulsor grenade launchers to function more like the Crusader/Redeemer style).

"Empirically", the Land Raider guns are the main weapons of the vehicle, and happen to cover the doors while also being able to fire forward.

"Empirically", the Primaris tanks tend to have more weapon systems. This either requires more crew or new AI systems, so you're either using more of your valuable marines or you've got some fancy new fire control tech that the classic vehicles don't have.

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles do not have treads.

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles have a lot more visual clutter.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 22:54:30


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Insectum7 wrote:^Well, if you want to talk "realistic", I believe it was Inq Lord Katherine who pointed out that the Rhino and Predator are basically the M113 and the version of the M113 with a turret. (I forget what it's called). The current Predator turret is almost identical to that tank iirc. Those tanks are basically real world design, with some slight additional armor "slabulation" for style. The goofy part is the sponsons, which have a historical basis and imo bely a crude mind set.


Yeah. This Predator M113 is Australian, and lots of other countries have variations on "M113 w/ Turret":




As for the sponsons, I don't think they're crude, but they fall into the "why does the tank have these"? Like, there are 2 lascannons mounted in hanging mounts on the sides, which is basically the same as the twinlas mount in the turret or more powerful than an autocannon. Like, why is the turret weapon what it is if you can have a more powerful weapon just hanging there off the side of the tank?

Insectum7 wrote:
"Empirically", the Land Raider guns are the main weapons of the vehicle, and happen to cover the doors while also being able to fire forward.


That depends on how you build your land raider. If you build it the stupid way as illustrated on the box art and in the instructions, the guns don't cover the doors, in fact, they block the doors from opening and troops disembarking from the tank would have to disembark through the fire of it's own guns. This irritates me. Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/21 23:36:30


Post by: Ice_can


That depends upon how you look at it for the original landraider with lascannons (which really should have been a heavy lascannon or some such like they were described in some of the old 3rd edition fluff) are for engaging vehicals not covering disembarking troops, thats what the heavy bolters over the assualt ramp are for.

The crusader I can see arguments either way around.

That's the key here is a repulsor etc doesnt fit the idea of shock trooper/stormtroopers that Marines are ment to represent, while the landraider, Spartan and Mastadon really do.
They are heavy armoured delivery vehicals for angry close quarter murder specialists. You can take any of them crash into a building or just outside of to heavily armoured buildings and let your CC muder squad go ham.

Also if you include Falchion and Fellblades then predators as upgunned rhinos make way more sence for legion forces as they arn't supposed to be the heavy armour more the light weight armour with landraiders bridging the middle weight armour and the LoW are the true heavy armour.

The problem with the primaris stuff is it's a mishmash of modern military concepts within a setting that doesn't fight war the same way, repulsors of both kinds make no real sense in 40k terms its a big heavy box with entirely too many small fragile looking bolt on bits to go crashing through buildings and to big and heavy to actually be anti grav like Tau or eldar.

The spacecamino just why marines in an open vehical that's never been a thing, lads jump in the pickup while we race towards this fortification. The Gladiator is the lease out of place of the lot but it lacks the well its just a rhino with more structure and guns of a predator and if you were clean sheet designing it as a tank it's just no failed.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 01:35:40


Post by: Voss


Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 02:09:34


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


epronovost wrote:To me, the only difference between the new Space Marine tanks and the old ones is that the new ones don't have tracks, but crude grav engines. They basically look the same. Sure, hte gguns got a bit bigger (which make sense they are tanks afterall) and they have those small missile packs that could look like counter-measure flares but actually are guided weapons. They are the same stuff as before. I prefer tracks personnaly since the Imperium anti-grav tech was supposed to be significantaly inferior to that of Taus and Eldars, but else they are pretty much the same basic design in bold primary colors just like the Marines themselves.
That's pretty much how I see it, but I'm also fine with Space Marines having grav tech, seeing as Land Speeders have long been a thing, and the flavour of the Repulsor tech isn't "elegant anti-grav", but rather "punching the ground so hard it floats", which is SUPER Space Marine-y.

Insectum7 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"Why not?"

And please be empirical here, none of this talk of "kiddifying" when I could say exactly the same about the older tanks, which are equally as kid-friendly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The gun over each door is "kid-logic".
Why is that "kid logic"? The Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer does this too - it has guns covering each exit, as well as grenade launchers (even if it functions differently in game - I would prefer for the Repulsor grenade launchers to function more like the Crusader/Redeemer style).

"Empirically", the Land Raider guns are the main weapons of the vehicle, and happen to cover the doors while also being able to fire forward.
And what does this mean, other than just stating something for the sake of it? Why does this make the Primaris stuff "kiddified"?

"Empirically", the Primaris tanks tend to have more weapon systems. This either requires more crew or new AI systems, so you're either using more of your valuable marines or you've got some fancy new fire control tech that the classic vehicles don't have.
Um, yeah - automated fire control makes the most sense - because it's a "fancy new" vehicle. Again, really not seeing why this makes it "kid-friendly", which is what I'm asking here.

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles do not have treads.
And why does this make it "kiddified"? Do you also think Land Speeders aren't appropriate Space Marine vehicles, because they don't have tracks or wheels? Because right now, all you're doing is skimming the surface, you're not answering "why".

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles have a lot more visual clutter.
Ah, but do they? When assembled with all the crates and stowage on the sides? Absolutely - but that's entirely optional, just like how someone could put all that on a Rhino, and it'd look just as busy.
Like, I'm looking at a Land Raider and Repulsor side by side, and honestly, they look about the same.

So, I'm slapping a big old *doubt* on that one, purely because that's not empirical.

Ice_can wrote:That's the key here is a repulsor etc doesnt fit the idea of shock trooper/stormtroopers that Marines are ment to represent, while the landraider, Spartan and Mastadon really do.
Curious - why doesn't it, but the Land Raider does? Is it the front ramp alone?
For me, I think the Repulsor fits very nicely into what I'd want/expect - large transport capacity, good speed, ground clearance, well armed and armoured for the thick of the fight - I feel it's much more suitable than Rhinos.
Rrepulsors of both kinds make no real sense in 40k terms its a big heavy box with entirely too many small fragile looking bolt on bits to go crashing through buildings and to big and heavy to actually be anti grav like Tau or eldar.
Exactly, too big and heavy to be anti-grav like Tau or Eldar is exactly WHY they fit Space Marines so well! A Rhino doesn't look like it could plow through a wall anywhere near as well as a Repulsor could.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 02:35:13


Post by: Irbis


 Insectum7 wrote:
The Rhino is a simple metal box. Basic, effective, easy to maintain. Classic Marine vehicles are there to deliver and support the infantry, vs. IG infantry being there to support the tanks. All tanks using the Rhino Chassis are just variations on the metal box. Pretty straight forward, very grounded in "reality", and fairly crude in a way that reflects the mindset of much of the Imperium.

The Land Raider is the creme de la creme. It's a WW1 tank with laser cannons and doors on the front. It embodies the anachronistic thinking of 40K, particularly marines, and is unique. It speaks of decision making that is prioritizing things very differently than our modern "western" armies, and looks purpose built to smash into buildings to unload marines directly into brutal CC assaults.


The Primaris hover tanks are pretty generic sci-fi tacticool in comparison, and the proportions of their details make them look more toy-like.

I like how people call something that follows real, existing tank much closer than Rhino did M113 a ""generic sci-fi tacticool toy"":



Primaris vehicles are basically Merkava in space - down to nearly identical, octagonal turret with flat rim, sloped front, and heavy stubbers mounted on hatches. It also funnily enough has remotely operated turred with HMG or grenade launcher in front, as well as internal mortar and coaxial HMG or autocannon, very close weapon loadout to new primaris vehicles - apparently someone forgot to tell them it's "unrealistic". Hell, the grenade dispensers on 40K turret people diss? Merkava has identical ones, see the oval cover to the right of smoke launchers? They sit right there.

It's funny that as soon as SM tank is copying 90s design instead of 70s it's somehow suddenly "tacticool toy", when what people call "clutter" is actually close to what modern, standard real-life tank is sporting these days and if anything, it's the Rhino/Predator that looks unrealistically bare and like a toy. I guess yet another example of 'they changed it (for the better), now it sucks' syndrome, eh?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 03:14:34


Post by: Insectum7


^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 03:23:09


Post by: BrianDavion


 Insectum7 wrote:
^How many guns does the Merkava have?


6,
1 12.7 mm machine gun
2 7.62 mm machine guns
1 mortar
1 grenade launcher
and the main gun

google is your friend.



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 03:24:41


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Insectum7 wrote:
^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?


Four or five, generally. One main gun, 2-3 remote MGs, and a 60mm mortar. Also smoke launchers, but in 40k parlance those are "vehicle wargear", not "weapons". Note also that every weapon on a Merkava is mounted on the turret for maximum field of fire, rather than the Primaris hovertanks' restrictive hull mounts, and all those weapons have distinct roles, rather than spamming as many duplicates of the same class of weapon as possible because you can magically use them all at maximum efficiency all the time.

(No, it doesn't fly under its own power, but you might be able to fit two in a C5 if you needed to get them somewhere quickly.)


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 03:43:15


Post by: Either/Or


Voss wrote:
Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.


Also it looks pretty derpy with the guns mounted on the forward position instead of the back, though functionally you are correct. As far as space marines go, no self respecting space marine would use the side door of a land raider! ABC Always Be Charging.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 05:08:55


Post by: fraser1191


Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 05:30:12


Post by: jeff white


 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Exactly. Restartes are heresy. Cawl’s flying tanks are almost as ridiculous as flying restartes with auto cannons. All evidence of GW execs aiming to become Hasbro as they turned space marines into GI Joe. Tripe for puppies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

Exalted.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 07:52:25


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Voss wrote:
Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.


Except mounting it on the back of the tank is the mechanically disadvantageous option when measuring from the sponson mount. You lose about 2" of range in exchange for moving the two disembarkation points forward on the vehicle, which is pretty unnessecary since the front ramp has enough space to disembark the unit except maybe on a fully loaded Crusader.

Presumably, the reason is because the instruction manual and box art illustrate it on the back. That said, guns blocking the disembarkation doors and disembarking in front of your guns in general is an idea that is definitely more silly than anything the Repulsor has going for it.


As a side note, the Land Raider also can't use the heavy bolters/assault cannons while disembarking troops because the front ramp door blocks the gun mount when opened. It's not quite as bad as the lascannon barrels physically preventing the doors from being opened or having to disembark through the fire of your guns, but in terms of poor and silly designs, the Land Raider is way worse than the Repsulor.


Personally, I really like the Repulsor Executioner. I don't like the regular one because it's got the aforementioned complaint I have with 40k tank where the fairly large and prominent turret weapon is less effective than the relatively tiny hull mount, but I do like the Executioner, because it looks pretty reasonably tank-like.


Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?


I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 09:49:42


Post by: Ice_can


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ice_can wrote:That's the key here is a repulsor etc doesnt fit the idea of shock trooper/stormtroopers that Marines are ment to represent, while the landraider, Spartan and Mastadon really do.
Curious - why doesn't it, but the Land Raider does? Is it the front ramp alone?
For me, I think the Repulsor fits very nicely into what I'd want/expect - large transport capacity, good speed, ground clearance, well armed and armoured for the thick of the fight - I feel it's much more suitable than Rhinos.
Rrepulsors of both kinds make no real sense in 40k terms its a big heavy box with entirely too many small fragile looking bolt on bits to go crashing through buildings and to big and heavy to actually be anti grav like Tau or eldar.
Exactly, too big and heavy to be anti-grav like Tau or Eldar is exactly WHY they fit Space Marines so well! A Rhino doesn't look like it could plow through a wall anywhere near as well as a Repulsor could.


Repulsors are designed to work like modern tanks, except the idea of Close combat in 40k terms especially as a main purpose of troops does not have a modern military equivalent. It's close range firefights usually.
Yeah for the drive up disembark and then have shoot out the repulsor design works fine as a shock assualt vehical dude leaving one by one on multiple sides would get overwhelmed and cutdown.

The rhino isn't an assualt vehical so you generally wouldn't go crashing a rhino through walls its a apc, it's sole purpose is to move groups of troops for point a to point b relatively rested at speed with a level of protection from small arms eg lasguns and bolters maybe heavy bolters.

A Repulsor is like a king tiger tank too big and heavy for its ground pressure to stay reasonable, heck one of the storys talks about the antigrav tearing up the armour road, it's in keepingnwith the primaris design philosophy of brute force will over come any problem, make more, make bigger and ignore any reason why that would be a down side.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 16:29:47


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I think that the Gladiator looks good. It fits with the 40K Imperium Anacrho-Futuristic design theme. I understand that change is not everyone's cup of tea, but grav works for me regarding Space Marines. I think that the Lancer, in particular, looks like a mean 40K Space Marine tank with clear lineage from the Predator. As an Armour officer for some 30 years (so I ride in them I don't design them), I separate my church and state when wargaming in science fiction. I can totally accept the Leman Russ for all of its weirdness because 40K. If I was playing a wargame set in 2025 then I would expect the tanks and AFVs to look "realistic." A tank from the 40K universe? As long as it looks cool I am good with it. Subjective and not necessarily consistent, but there it is.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 16:54:46


Post by: jeff white


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:



Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?


I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.


Hover and fly were not so common. Xenos had anti-grav tech mostly if at all until recently. Should not be in the imperium armory in any real numbers given the original mythology. I mean, guard used to ride actual horses. That is the state of the empire broadly speaking. So common? No. Plus, there is physics. Recoil. Actual gravity. We work with walking humanoid robots now. Hover anything remains a dream.

Ten thousand times? I am not sure how that even makes sense.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 18:00:28


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I don't think anti-grav is unreasonable for a tank.

I also don't mind the additional weapons - but one must admit they require additional automation for fire control, which means these vehicles have some kind of Machine Spirit that the older vehicles lack (alternatively, each one operates like a Tau drone and selects its own target within its fire arc. But that's not how they play in the game, and it's impossible to know because GW won't give vehicles rules to make them work like vehicles).


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 18:26:51


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 jeff white wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:



Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?


I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.


Hover and fly were not so common. Xenos had anti-grav tech mostly if at all until recently. Should not be in the imperium armory in any real numbers given the original mythology. I mean, guard used to ride actual horses. That is the state of the empire broadly speaking. So common? No. Plus, there is physics. Recoil. Actual gravity. We work with walking humanoid robots now. Hover anything remains a dream.

Ten thousand times? I am not sure how that even makes sense.


Giant Walking Robots are in fact basically a flight of geeky entertainment, not a valid military element.

Let us say that we have a walker tank and a tracked or wheeled combat vehicle of equivalent weight and armament:
A tracked or wheeled combat vehicle has the following advantages:
The walker must support it's entire weight on one of it's footpads, the weight of the tracked vehicle is distributed across it's entire track ground contact area. This is a huge difference; a tracked tank will have much better performance in soft ground than a walker of equivalent weight. [alternatively phrased, a tracked vehicle can be heavier than a walker before it sinks into the swamp]
The walker must neccessarily be taller, since it need approximately twice the height of it's maximum obstacle crossing height for it's legs alone, with additional height above that for the torso and weapons mounts. Leg length is also fundamentally critical for speed. Thus, the front profile area of a walker is much larger than the front profile area of a tracked combat vehicle. A cursory understanding of geometry, would indicate that for the same weight, the front armor of a tracked combat vehicle can be made much thicker than that of a walker. So not only does the tracked combat vehicle have better terrain passability for it's weight and armament, it also is better protected.
Finally, a tracked combat vehicle will always be faster. Even if a fairly long-legged walker wouldn't be able to keep up with a tank travelling at speed, because the mechanical efficiency of spinning a wheel can both be done much more quickly than a set of 3 joints can be actuated back and forth and at higher speeds.

A walker has the following advantages over a tracked combat vehicle:
None. Literally none. I head you something about "but it can step up!", except this requires whatever you're stepping up onto to well, support your weight. Also, you can't step up that far. A tracked tank can ascend a steeper grade [because it's wide and flat and won't tip over on as steep an incline, and also has a higher surface area to maintain traction while climbing so it doesn't sled back, and has better torque], cross a wider trench, and still scale a 4 foot obstacle.



If we had developed hover technology [which the Imperium does and did have before, see Land Speeders and all their combat aircraft], however, there isn't actually much reason that it shouldn't be used for a tank. The only real concern would be stability when firing, but that's really a false problem, because if you ever watch real tanks firing while jumping, they basically experience no momentum change because they're so heavy compared to their shells. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it winds up working dynamically the same as a tracked vehicle, with potential improvements in speed, obstacle crossing, and maybe even terrain passability.



TL, DR: walkers have no reason to exist and are worse in every way than wheels or tracks, hover technology could reasonably be used for a tank should it be available. So the Repulsor and Gladiator is intrinsically less silly than an Imperial Knight, Dreadnought, or Sentinel.


Also, here are some more design points in the Repulsor's favor:
Door in the back vs. Door in the front. A front ramp is not only a breach in the hull that you voluntarily open and let fire in through, the troops also can't use the tank for protection while disembarking from the tank. The repulsor has it's main door in the back, which is at least an improvement over having it in the front, though this improvement is tempered by it being flanked by the engines. While the tank is expected to be stationary while unloading troops, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem, it does mean it has to wait until they're clear before moving off. Complaining about this falls into the category of "rejecting an improvement that's a massive improvement in every way because there's a tiny inconvenience"
Actual turreted gun gives better fields of fire and performance as a vehicle.
No interference between it's abilities as a tank and it's abilities as a transport. Opening the doors doesn't block any of the guns no matter how you build it.


In terms of stupid things, there are 2, and one of them is shared with the Land Raider:
Size. It's stupidly tall. but literally all warhammer tanks are stupidly tall.
The little storm bolters and ironhail stubbers sticking out of every orifice. Why are they on the back side of the turret or over the doors? I have no idea. Why does it need these at all? I also have no idea. The grenade launchers and stuff is pretty standard though, since tanks as old as WWII have had grenade launchers for discouraging infantry assaults and modern tanks have active kill systems which also look like that to shoot down incoming missiles.


TL: DR: we accept the Land Raider for it's stupid design, the Repulsor is less stupid but apparently we can't accept it?


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 21:14:56


Post by: BrianDavion


As Katherine said combat walkers are horriably impractical. even if some of the smaller ones might have a niche use, things like Titans are a HORRIABLE idea in real life (they'd be fodder for air strikes at the least) this is typical of everytime GW introduces a new tank. the edgey people who get off on disliking everything new bash it as silly and impractical while clutching their WW1 tanks and combat walkers to their chest like they're perfectly normal.



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 22:35:53


Post by: Ice_can


BrianDavion wrote:
As Katherine said combat walkers are horriably impractical. even if some of the smaller ones might have a niche use, things like Titans are a HORRIABLE idea in real life (they'd be fodder for air strikes at the least) this is typical of everytime GW introduces a new tank. the edgey people who get off on disliking everything new bash it as silly and impractical while clutching their WW1 tanks and combat walkers to their chest like they're perfectly normal.


Silly and impractical is 40k.

Just because not everyone love Primaris doesn't make them wrong either.
Your complaining that people are saying this thing doesn't fit within what they consider inkeeping with the last 20 years of what GW has produced for spacemarines.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 22:55:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 23:05:13


Post by: ScarletRose


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


And in miniatures gaming Heavy Gear, Beyond the Gates of Antares and Battletech (although BT's hovertanks are more like real world hovercraft with big skirting).


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 23:38:16


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Although they used hover fans, Hammer’s Slammers used floating tanks to great Sci-fi effect. Picture a Vietnam era Armored Cavalry Regiment with flying tanks and APCs, not to mention energy weapons. Best tank science fiction around. Ogre GEV had hovertanks (light ones), and FASA’s Renegade Legions had grav tanks aplenty.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 23:39:32


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


Regular Star Wars has repulsor tanks. There was just one in the Mandalorian on friday, they've been in Rebels and the Clone Wars, etc.

To add to the list, Dropzone Commander has human controlled hovertanks in the PHR.


Hammers Slammers is pretty awesome, there was a Panzer Blitz style wargame about them I played one time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
As Katherine said combat walkers are horriably impractical. even if some of the smaller ones might have a niche use, things like Titans are a HORRIABLE idea in real life (they'd be fodder for air strikes at the least) this is typical of everytime GW introduces a new tank. the edgey people who get off on disliking everything new bash it as silly and impractical while clutching their WW1 tanks and combat walkers to their chest like they're perfectly normal.


Silly and impractical is 40k.

Just because not everyone love Primaris doesn't make them wrong either.
Your complaining that people are saying this thing doesn't fit within what they consider inkeeping with the last 20 years of what GW has produced for spacemarines.


The Repulsor isn't outside of what GW has made for the Space Marines. Literally nothing on it is something they didn't have before.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/22 23:47:28


Post by: Breton


 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


The VHT-1 Veritech Hovertank from the Robotech series.

They were all over the place in Battletech.

Shadowrun has a few LAVs


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 11:11:42


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


jeff white wrote:Exactly. Restartes are heresy. Cawl’s flying tanks are almost as ridiculous as flying restartes with auto cannons. All evidence of GW execs aiming to become Hasbro as they turned space marines into GI Joe. Tripe for puppies.
Pardon? Do you have any ACTUAL reasons for why the Primaris tanks are "GI Joe tripe", or are you just being hysterical?


Ice_can wrote:Repulsors are designed to work like modern tanks, except the idea of Close combat in 40k terms especially as a main purpose of troops does not have a modern military equivalent. It's close range firefights usually.
Yeah for the drive up disembark and then have shoot out the repulsor design works fine as a shock assualt vehical dude leaving one by one on multiple sides would get overwhelmed and cutdown.
It's literally no different in it's disembarking points than a Rhino though?? Plus, that's why it has the storm bolter/fragstorm arrays on the exit points, to prevent that kind of encirclement.

The rhino isn't an assualt vehical so you generally wouldn't go crashing a rhino through walls its a apc, it's sole purpose is to move groups of troops for point a to point b relatively rested at speed with a level of protection from small arms eg lasguns and bolters maybe heavy bolters.
And THIS is why I don't see the point of the Rhino in the Astartes arsenal. What you've described, lasguns, bolters and heavy bolters - these should all be things that the power armour itself should be protecting from! Like, I don't know about everyone else, but I see the Rhino's armour as just about the same durability as the power armour of the people in it - if you want to have the Space Marines get upfield, why not use Drop Pods or jump packs, or a Razorback? For squishy guardsmen, an APC makes total sense, but for Space Marines, whose armour is just about as thick as the tank they're in, and who don't really tire out from movement on the battlefield, I question the need for an APC.

A Repulsor is like a king tiger tank too big and heavy for its ground pressure to stay reasonable, heck one of the storys talks about the antigrav tearing up the armour road, it's in keepingnwith the primaris design philosophy of brute force will over come any problem, make more, make bigger and ignore any reason why that would be a down side.
Except that's why it feels like such a Space Marine tank to me - that idea of "brute force" is so perfectly conceptualised even in the way it hovers. And again - "reasonable" and 40k don't often appear in the same sentence.

jeff white wrote:Hover and fly were not so common. Xenos had anti-grav tech mostly if at all until recently. Should not be in the imperium armory in any real numbers given the original mythology.
Land Speeder says hi.
Fun fact - Land Speeders are more common than Land Raiders!


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 13:50:37


Post by: Unit1126PLL


As far as sci-fi series goes, the Bolo series implemented it in a pretty cool way - they can apply power to contragravity generators mounted in the hull plating between the treads to "fly". They could even do orbital descents using this device.

However, it consumed power, which was often needed for other thingies (e.g. energizing battlescreens, firing laser defenses or infinite repeaters or whatehaveyou, powering the psychotronic computer's needs, etc etc.). So during combat, most Bolo tanks rested on and maneuvered using their tracks. Contragrav mobility was an option if they needed it, but they could also use tracks and save the power, in other words.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 14:31:18


Post by: VladimirHerzog


BrianDavion wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.


the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.


its the grenade launchers that make it look goofy as feth. All these boxes of grenades all over look goofy, and the extra stubber for no reason on top. Oh, and i just learned that it has a gun on the back by looking at the instructions to try and figure out the name of all its weapons (i gave up).

If the repulsor had only : hull gun, main turret gun, manned turret gun and "sponsons" on the sides only, it would look fine. As it is its just too much crap on it and rolling its shots is a pain in the ass.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore.


Curious about this, because if you put tracks on the two tanks you've got pictured, they'd be a lot like land raider's tracks. They'd very clearly go where the two big front 'skids' are, except recessed into the armor, and would run along the bottom (you'd pop off the side skids, and extend armor under the side doors), and replace the jet engines, which is where the tracks would feed back into the armor.

Both the rhino chassis and the land raider has the same kind of setup, though a slightly taller armored side (or rather, the repulsor cuts it short to stuff the antigrav skids underneath).

Not speaking to realism at all, just the overall design of a relatively narrow central hull sandwiched between armored side-sections.


real tracks go over the hull (like the land raider proteus or spartan assault tank).


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 14:35:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Arguing the combat worth of 'Mechs is kinda stupid IMO. Of course they wouldn't work in real life. But this isn't real life we're talking about.

In "real life" all the 'Mechs in BattleTech would get their gak kicked in by all the tanks. But they don't. The rules are written specifically to make tanks weaker and more vulnerable to incoming fire. It's unrealistic... but the point of the game is "big stompy robots" not "big stompy robots that get pasted by sensible, logical tanks".

The same obviously applies to 40k as well.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 14:47:23


Post by: the_scotsman


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.
Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?


Yeah, mostly they do. I've collected three different marine armies at this point and I've willingly built and painted a grand total of 3 box tanks for those armies, I'll freely admit that they basically just do nothing for me aesthetically. The distinction is that a rhino is a 44$ model and an impulsor is a 75$ model. And for most of the time I've been able to collect marine stuff, a rhino has been more like a 30$ model.

Something "looking like a cheap action figure instead of a premium super-expensive model" definitely it being nearly twice as expensive exacerbates that problem.

If I look at buying, lets say a Goliath truck for my GSC, it's a similar price point at like 65$ or something. But that model has several crewmembers that are all multipart guys compatible with the rest of my bits, it's got doors I can model open or closed, it's got a back hatch I can model one way or another, it's a dual kit I can build as a rockgrinder or a truck with a whole dozer blade and a whole different gun assembly and an open back...I look at that and I go "Yeesh, 65 bucks" but at the same time I know it's a nice diorama piece with enough bits on it to make me able to make something totally unique to my army and even unique to my other copies of that same kit.



Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 14:50:48


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Land Speeder says hi.
Fun fact - Land Speeders are more common than Land Raiders!


yeah, but land speeders and bikes aren't main battle tanks, theyre used to harass the enemy and outmaneuver them. not stay in the back of the map and gun them down all game long.

Actual hover tanks should be left for technologically advanced Xenos. Eldar, Drukhari, Harlequins, Tau and Necrons all make sense to be using hover tanks.
But i guess when people complain that primaris take up the identity of other armies its just mindless marine bashing and not a valid complaint.

As to whoever posted the Merkava to point out that auxiliary grenade launchers are a thing, notice how on the merkava they don't look like ammo boxes stapled to the side haphazardly? Thats the difference with the Repulsor.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/23 16:54:04


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The rhino isn't an assualt vehical so you generally wouldn't go crashing a rhino through walls its a apc, it's sole purpose is to move groups of troops for point a to point b relatively rested at speed with a level of protection from small arms eg lasguns and bolters maybe heavy bolters.
And THIS is why I don't see the point of the Rhino in the Astartes arsenal. What you've described, lasguns, bolters and heavy bolters - these should all be things that the power armour itself should be protecting from! Like, I don't know about everyone else, but I see the Rhino's armour as just about the same durability as the power armour of the people in it - if you want to have the Space Marines get upfield, why not use Drop Pods or jump packs, or a Razorback? For squishy guardsmen, an APC makes total sense, but for Space Marines, whose armour is just about as thick as the tank they're in, and who don't really tire out from movement on the battlefield, I question the need for an APC.


A Rhino is still substantinally better armored than a PA suit, and it's faster. APC's are mostly for the tactical and strategic mobility anyway.


VladimirHerzog wrote:
its the grenade launchers that make it look goofy as feth. All these boxes of grenades all over look goofy, and the extra stubber for no reason on top. Oh, and i just learned that it has a gun on the back by looking at the instructions to try and figure out the name of all its weapons (i gave up).

If the repulsor had only : hull gun, main turret gun, manned turret gun and "sponsons" on the sides only, it would look fine. As it is its just too much crap on it and rolling its shots is a pain in the ass.


I actually think the grenade launchers look fine. They look like the NII Stali active-defense system on the Armata, and something that a real tank might have.

The door gun/recessed mini-turrets on the back of the turret are the things that I find weird about it.

VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Land Speeder says hi.
Fun fact - Land Speeders are more common than Land Raiders!


yeah, but land speeders and bikes aren't main battle tanks, theyre used to harass the enemy and outmaneuver them. not stay in the back of the map and gun them down all game long.

Actual hover tanks should be left for technologically advanced Xenos. Eldar, Drukhari, Harlequins, Tau and Necrons all make sense to be using hover tanks.
But i guess when people complain that primaris take up the identity of other armies its just mindless marine bashing and not a valid complaint.

As to whoever posted the Merkava to point out that auxiliary grenade launchers are a thing, notice how on the merkava they don't look like ammo boxes stapled to the side haphazardly? Thats the difference with the Repulsor.


The Imperium doesn't lack for the ability to create heavy hover vehicles, they just previously generally didn't chose to, presumably out of logistic or engineering pressures. [these aren't hard to imagine. Power draw, simplicity, internal volume, maintenance, rapidity of production, etc.]

The wolfwolf gunship has antigrav panels underneath it for flight, as does the Caestus, and both are pretty chunky vehicles.

There's also the Caladias and other Talons vehicles, and in the lore there were antigrav land raiders and rhinos.

And, of course, there's the famous "Imperial Grav Tank" from way back when.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/25 11:08:41


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Arguing the combat worth of 'Mechs is kinda stupid IMO. Of course they wouldn't work in real life. But this isn't real life we're talking about.

In "real life" all the 'Mechs in BattleTech would get their gak kicked in by all the tanks. But they don't. The rules are written specifically to make tanks weaker and more vulnerable to incoming fire. It's unrealistic... but the point of the game is "big stompy robots" not "big stompy robots that get pasted by sensible, logical tanks".

The same obviously applies to 40k as well.


and IIRC the introduction in Total warfare outright SAYS something along those lines


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/25 18:11:05


Post by: Breton


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


its the grenade launchers that make it look goofy as feth. All these boxes of grenades all over look goofy, and the extra stubber for no reason on top. Oh, and i just learned that it has a gun on the back by looking at the instructions to try and figure out the name of all its weapons (i gave up).
that’s the AA Mount.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/25 21:30:29


Post by: BrianDavion


Breton wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


its the grenade launchers that make it look goofy as feth. All these boxes of grenades all over look goofy, and the extra stubber for no reason on top. Oh, and i just learned that it has a gun on the back by looking at the instructions to try and figure out the name of all its weapons (i gave up).
that’s the AA Mount.


it CAN be an AA mount, although it can also be a storm bolter to cover the rear hatch


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/29 13:13:57


Post by: Kommissar Kel


First off: did any of you ever actually look at the rules or have you just been making wild assumptions from the model?

The "Grenade Launchers" in the boxes are autolaunchers, I.E. Smoke launchers; their placement is sensical even if their size is way too big.

They really have very few weapons compared to the realtor, which is fine: 3 Base guns, 2 add-on weapon options, and a defensive Item Option. The pics all show 1 add-on and 1 defensive gear with just a few showing the edges of the second add-on(personally I feel, rules/gamewise, that you should always pay the 15 points for both add-one and the defensive).

What is nonsensical is that they did the same thing with this model as the Executioner: Having the Icarus Rocket pod replace a single Autolauncher box. at least the base Repulsor and redemptor dreads have them on micro turrets.

Now, since we now have the preorders up: GW has created the debacle of the old Rhino/Razorback separate kits again. There is no reason that you should ever buy another impulsor since of $5USD more you can get a gladius that can be easily magnetized for swapping between the 2(and the gladius variants).I know that is what I will be doing.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 03:00:46


Post by: ccs


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


Regular Star Wars has repulsor tanks. There was just one in the Mandalorian on friday, they've been in Rebels and the Clone Wars, etc.


There's also that one in SW: Rogue One.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 03:43:27


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


ccs wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


Regular Star Wars has repulsor tanks. There was just one in the Mandalorian on friday, they've been in Rebels and the Clone Wars, etc.


There's also that one in SW: Rogue One.


That one is actually tracked. It's a TX225 Occupier Assault Tank, and it's a tracked combat transport made by Rothana Heavy Engineering. The toy for it was advertised as a hovertank, but in the film and the lore it's tracked. IIRC there's a shot of it's tracks in the movie.

According to wookiepedia, it's tracked for better maneuverability in urban combat conditions. That said, I doubt it would be any good in an urban combat environment; it's weapons layout is terrible and it's guns have about 0 degrees of weapons traverse which would be important in an urban combat environment [also, while it's got a good frontal profile, it's top armor which is also important in an urban combat environment is unknown and based on the fact that it's also a flatbed cargo carrier might be questionable]. It would probably be relatively good, by the general standards of Imperial designs that gave us the AT-AT and AT-ST, in a general assault across open ground like Hoth.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 09:49:29


Post by: AngryAngel80


I think the vehicle looks fine, that said, I prefer treads or more usual looking tanks. ( call me old fashioned ). My biggest issue with the Gladiator isn't the look or lay out, it's the money cost. I keep wondering when the rise will end, and all that happens is the new releases make the older ones I felt were over expensive seem reasonable over time.

It looks and feels fine though, considering the lay out of the primaris vehicles.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 11:11:29


Post by: BrianDavion


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
ccs wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


Regular Star Wars has repulsor tanks. There was just one in the Mandalorian on friday, they've been in Rebels and the Clone Wars, etc.


There's also that one in SW: Rogue One.


That one is actually tracked. It's a TX225 Occupier Assault Tank, and it's a tracked combat transport made by Rothana Heavy Engineering. The toy for it was advertised as a hovertank, but in the film and the lore it's tracked. IIRC there's a shot of it's tracks in the movie.

According to wookiepedia, it's tracked for better maneuverability in urban combat conditions. That said, I doubt it would be any good in an urban combat environment; it's weapons layout is terrible and it's guns have about 0 degrees of weapons traverse which would be important in an urban combat environment [also, while it's got a good frontal profile, it's top armor which is also important in an urban combat environment is unknown and based on the fact that it's also a flatbed cargo carrier might be questionable]. It would probably be relatively good, by the general standards of Imperial designs that gave us the AT-AT and AT-ST, in a general assault across open ground like Hoth.


it honestly looks more like an Anti air platform


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 19:08:49


Post by: Salted Diamond


BrianDavion wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
ccs wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy


Star Wars EU (repulsor tanks), Dahak, Battlefield 2142, Supreme Commander, Civ Beyond Earth, Traveller, Rifts.


Regular Star Wars has repulsor tanks. There was just one in the Mandalorian on friday, they've been in Rebels and the Clone Wars, etc.


There's also that one in SW: Rogue One.


That one is actually tracked. It's a TX225 Occupier Assault Tank, and it's a tracked combat transport made by Rothana Heavy Engineering. The toy for it was advertised as a hovertank, but in the film and the lore it's tracked. IIRC there's a shot of it's tracks in the movie.

According to wookiepedia, it's tracked for better maneuverability in urban combat conditions. That said, I doubt it would be any good in an urban combat environment; it's weapons layout is terrible and it's guns have about 0 degrees of weapons traverse which would be important in an urban combat environment [also, while it's got a good frontal profile, it's top armor which is also important in an urban combat environment is unknown and based on the fact that it's also a flatbed cargo carrier might be questionable]. It would probably be relatively good, by the general standards of Imperial designs that gave us the AT-AT and AT-ST, in a general assault across open ground like Hoth.


it honestly looks more like an Anti air platform


I think the idea of the Rogue One tank was more of a WW2 Stug idea, it's even in the name. The Stug was classified as an "Assault Gun" and was to support infantry attacks. I can see Star Wars Empire using a similar vehicle, and were simply using it as a cargo vehicle because it was there. We used our tanks for all sorts of non-intended uses while I was in the Army, and there were test designs for supply trailiers for tanks in WW2 even though those didn't go anywhere because it limited maneuverability if attacked while towing.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 19:59:45


Post by: Slaphead


I do like the look of the Gladiator, but still not sure if game wise it would be better to take 3 atv invaders with multimeltas over the Valiant variant as they are around the same value in points.

Will prob still get the Gladiator though as it will be fun to paint up and use.

Looks wise, GW have done a good job in keeping with the overall design/feel of marines. Chaos desperately need their tanks done now as they are starting to look a tad dated in comparison.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/11/30 22:51:54


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


BrianDavion wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

That one is actually tracked. It's a TX225 Occupier Assault Tank, and it's a tracked combat transport made by Rothana Heavy Engineering. The toy for it was advertised as a hovertank, but in the film and the lore it's tracked. IIRC there's a shot of it's tracks in the movie.

According to wookiepedia, it's tracked for better maneuverability in urban combat conditions. That said, I doubt it would be any good in an urban combat environment; it's weapons layout is terrible and it's guns have about 0 degrees of weapons traverse which would be important in an urban combat environment [also, while it's got a good frontal profile, it's top armor which is also important in an urban combat environment is unknown and based on the fact that it's also a flatbed cargo carrier might be questionable]. It would probably be relatively good, by the general standards of Imperial designs that gave us the AT-AT and AT-ST, in a general assault across open ground like Hoth.


it honestly looks more like an Anti air platform


I don't think it could be an AA tank at all. An AA gun vehicle requires the ability to traverse quickly, with 0 degrees of traverse it couldn't track and hit a flying target.

It could definitely act as a SU-like assault gun or tank destroyer, though. Theoretically, it could also mount a larger weapon, like an AT-DT or AT-AT gun, on the flatbed in a traverable mount, which could make it probably one of the most formidable and reasonable weapons in the Imperial arsenal.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/12/01 16:12:26


Post by: generalchaos34


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:



Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?


I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.


Hover and fly were not so common. Xenos had anti-grav tech mostly if at all until recently. Should not be in the imperium armory in any real numbers given the original mythology. I mean, guard used to ride actual horses. That is the state of the empire broadly speaking. So common? No. Plus, there is physics. Recoil. Actual gravity. We work with walking humanoid robots now. Hover anything remains a dream.

Ten thousand times? I am not sure how that even makes sense.


Giant Walking Robots are in fact basically a flight of geeky entertainment, not a valid military element.

Let us say that we have a walker tank and a tracked or wheeled combat vehicle of equivalent weight and armament:
A tracked or wheeled combat vehicle has the following advantages:
The walker must support it's entire weight on one of it's footpads, the weight of the tracked vehicle is distributed across it's entire track ground contact area. This is a huge difference; a tracked tank will have much better performance in soft ground than a walker of equivalent weight. [alternatively phrased, a tracked vehicle can be heavier than a walker before it sinks into the swamp]
The walker must neccessarily be taller, since it need approximately twice the height of it's maximum obstacle crossing height for it's legs alone, with additional height above that for the torso and weapons mounts. Leg length is also fundamentally critical for speed. Thus, the front profile area of a walker is much larger than the front profile area of a tracked combat vehicle. A cursory understanding of geometry, would indicate that for the same weight, the front armor of a tracked combat vehicle can be made much thicker than that of a walker. So not only does the tracked combat vehicle have better terrain passability for it's weight and armament, it also is better protected.
Finally, a tracked combat vehicle will always be faster. Even if a fairly long-legged walker wouldn't be able to keep up with a tank travelling at speed, because the mechanical efficiency of spinning a wheel can both be done much more quickly than a set of 3 joints can be actuated back and forth and at higher speeds.

A walker has the following advantages over a tracked combat vehicle:
None. Literally none. I head you something about "but it can step up!", except this requires whatever you're stepping up onto to well, support your weight. Also, you can't step up that far. A tracked tank can ascend a steeper grade [because it's wide and flat and won't tip over on as steep an incline, and also has a higher surface area to maintain traction while climbing so it doesn't sled back, and has better torque], cross a wider trench, and still scale a 4 foot obstacle.



If we had developed hover technology [which the Imperium does and did have before, see Land Speeders and all their combat aircraft], however, there isn't actually much reason that it shouldn't be used for a tank. The only real concern would be stability when firing, but that's really a false problem, because if you ever watch real tanks firing while jumping, they basically experience no momentum change because they're so heavy compared to their shells. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it winds up working dynamically the same as a tracked vehicle, with potential improvements in speed, obstacle crossing, and maybe even terrain passability.



TL, DR: walkers have no reason to exist and are worse in every way than wheels or tracks, hover technology could reasonably be used for a tank should it be available. So the Repulsor and Gladiator is intrinsically less silly than an Imperial Knight, Dreadnought, or Sentinel.


Also, here are some more design points in the Repulsor's favor:
Door in the back vs. Door in the front. A front ramp is not only a breach in the hull that you voluntarily open and let fire in through, the troops also can't use the tank for protection while disembarking from the tank. The repulsor has it's main door in the back, which is at least an improvement over having it in the front, though this improvement is tempered by it being flanked by the engines. While the tank is expected to be stationary while unloading troops, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem, it does mean it has to wait until they're clear before moving off. Complaining about this falls into the category of "rejecting an improvement that's a massive improvement in every way because there's a tiny inconvenience"
Actual turreted gun gives better fields of fire and performance as a vehicle.
No interference between it's abilities as a tank and it's abilities as a transport. Opening the doors doesn't block any of the guns no matter how you build it.


In terms of stupid things, there are 2, and one of them is shared with the Land Raider:
Size. It's stupidly tall. but literally all warhammer tanks are stupidly tall.
The little storm bolters and ironhail stubbers sticking out of every orifice. Why are they on the back side of the turret or over the doors? I have no idea. Why does it need these at all? I also have no idea. The grenade launchers and stuff is pretty standard though, since tanks as old as WWII have had grenade launchers for discouraging infantry assaults and modern tanks have active kill systems which also look like that to shoot down incoming missiles.


TL: DR: we accept the Land Raider for it's stupid design, the Repulsor is less stupid but apparently we can't accept it?


I'll second that. The land raider, in all of its iconic glory, isn't exactly a smartly designed tank. I guess maybe it could excel as the spearhead of a tank wedge and exist to block fire from its better armed and less armored allies. As you pointed out it cannot actually provide covering fire for anything that is disembarking from it. Soooo, what does a land raider really accomplish? It looks cool, but rules wise the 2+ armor can only take you so far when you aren't well armed and you have nothing of value to carry outside of maybe sternguard but even they are better served in a drop pod. It made sense when you could never assault out of deepstrike so it was an alternative.

As for all this repulsor hate. I don't get it. Theres guns over the door? How else do you cover yourself when in an extremely hostile situation like Space Marines are usually in. When they are swarmed with hormagaunts having a few door guns aren't exactly a bad thing. Besides, its well known that tanks are very vulnerable to be swarmed by infantry and this is a solution, even if an inelegant one. Id even argue that the weird turrets on the back of the executioner are just replacements for the over door guns and designed to also protect the rear of the tank. I'll assume that space marines are supposed to be operating way forward and completely unsupported and these tanks take that idea seriously.

I would also argue that the Gladiator is simply the "support tank" for the repulsor. It cannot protect its own rear or flanks so it won't be first in like a repulsor but would instead be running support for that tank as it delivers its cargo or it requires infantry support of its own to function. My only complaint about the Gladiator is that its Pure anti tank chasis, the Lancer, kind of blows for the points, especially when compared to the Valiant, which does its job way better at a closer range.

I don't mind that tanks lost core and rerolls because being babysat by captains was just pure awful from a game, lore, and design standpoint. They maybe could have used a point decrease to showcase the fact that they are not getting these reroll interactions. Especially the land raider and repulsors.

I guess im one of the weirdos that really likes all the new tank designs because they feel functional, futuristic, and fall in line with the baseline aesthetics of Space Marines having bold lines, heavy armor, mobility, brutality, and being well armed. Theres nothing elegant about psace marine tech and I love it


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/12/01 16:32:27


Post by: The Newman


I just have to take a step back and admire that we've made page 5 on a discussion about a set of units that nobody will field unless they're deliberately handicapping themselves or playing for giggles.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/12/01 17:51:13


Post by: Nevelon


The Newman wrote:
I just have to take a step back and admire that we've made page 5 on a discussion about a set of units that nobody will field unless they're deliberately handicapping themselves or playing for giggles.


Not everyone plays for the tournament scene. In casual play a lot more units open up and are viable. And if both players field “soft” lists, you get a balanced game that’s enjoyable for everyone. And they get to use units they like and think look cool. Now that might be “for giggles” to you, but for a lot of people that’s 40k.

There are not right and wrong ways. The problem is making sure everyone is on board for the kind of game you are going to play.


Space Marine Gladiator  @ 2020/12/01 18:02:17


Post by: Xenomancers


I feel like the double gatling could be playable. It does put out more shots than/ is faster/ and has more thoughness than a redemptor dread for only a little more points. The tank destroyer version costs more than the same number of shots on infantry without the ability to buff. Why these tanks lost fly keyword is beyond me. Ill still get one for the lulz but core keyword has proven to be porely implemented. As the core keyword units fighting for the same roll are better even before you add in the buffs you can put on them. AKA bad internal balance = GW sucks at writing rules per usual.