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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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".
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".
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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: 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.
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: 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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!!!!!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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_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.
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 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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good thing 40K is fantasy and doesn't take place in the "real world."
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".
Because being able to clear the doors of enemy fire so the occupants can leave safely is kid logic?
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".
Because being able to clear the doors of enemy fire so the occupants can leave safely is kid logic?...
"Moar guns = better!" is kid-logic. Having the capacity to put suppressive fire out in every direction by having a turret that can point in every direction looks sensible and normal. Parking a tiny mini-turret with a 90-degree arc of fire over every door looks like the tank was built in Spore by a ten-year-old.
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".
Because being able to clear the doors of enemy fire so the occupants can leave safely is kid logic?...
"Moar guns = better!" is kid-logic. Having the capacity to put suppressive fire out in every direction by having a turret that can point in every direction looks sensible and normal. Parking a tiny mini-turret with a 90-degree arc of fire over every door looks like the tank was built in Spore by a ten-year-old.
Who said "more = better"? I asked a question on how point defense weapons specifically set up to protect the egress or entry of the passengers in situations of heavy enemy resistance, aka where Space Marines are often deployed, is a childish design? Instead you went on a tangent about "moar" and failed to address the point. Especially since the main turret could be engaging on target, which the point defense weapons can deal with flanking threats.
Combat is a three dimensional space and the Marines tend to be deploy into the center mass of the enemy lines, meaning that they need to engage in multiple directions at the same time.
Tyel wrote: The M3 tank laughs as your lack of imagination.
"The M3 had considerable firepower and good armor, but had serious drawbacks in its general design and shape, including a high silhouette, an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun preventing the tank from taking a hull-down position, riveted construction, and poor off-road performance."
Tyel wrote: The M3 tank laughs as your lack of imagination.
"The M3 had considerable firepower and good armor, but had serious drawbacks in its general design and shape, including a high silhouette, an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun preventing the tank from taking a hull-down position, riveted construction, and poor off-road performance."
Yup, sounds like a space marine vehicle.
In all fairness to the M3, it was built as an intern vehicle while they worked out problems(ie turret issues caused the hull main gun mounting) and was always intended to be replaced as soon as the M4 was ready. It was well liked by the British in North Africa and preformed well vs the German Panzer III and IV's that it faced.
I asked a question on how point defense weapons specifically set up to protect the egress or entry of the passengers in situations of heavy enemy resistance, aka where Space Marines are often deployed, is a childish design? Instead you went on a tangent about "moar" and failed to address the point. Especially since the main turret could be engaging on target, which the point defense weapons can deal with flanking threats.
Combat is a three dimensional space and the Marines tend to be deploy into the center mass of the enemy lines, meaning that they need to engage in multiple directions at the same time.
Wait, so the Repulsor is intelligently designed because Space Marines deliberately get individual tanks surrounded for fun?
I asked a question on how point defense weapons specifically set up to protect the egress or entry of the passengers in situations of heavy enemy resistance, aka where Space Marines are often deployed, is a childish design? Instead you went on a tangent about "moar" and failed to address the point. Especially since the main turret could be engaging on target, which the point defense weapons can deal with flanking threats.
Combat is a three dimensional space and the Marines tend to be deploy into the center mass of the enemy lines, meaning that they need to engage in multiple directions at the same time.
Wait, so the Repulsor is intelligently designed because Space Marines deliberately get individual tanks surrounded for fun?
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
In Dark Imperium while fighting Chaos Marines Repulsors are dropped much like a drop pod: directly into the enemy lines to disrupt the enemy, break fortifications and turn a single front into several smaller fronts that are easier to break and crush. This has been part of the Marine doctrine as far back as the Heresy and a method Horus himself used to great success to directly assault enemy commabd locations to break the enemy defense. Having a tank that can support that role ans defend the egress of the passengers is in line with the logic of the setting. "But it has a lot of guns!" Yeah, because it hits the dirt, lays down supressive fire from the door guns (much like how door guns are used on APCs in general), while the turret engages high priority targets. Some of the boxes on the turret are short range grenade launchers that employ a death blossom approach into a mass of the enemy, while others are smoke launchers that can create a defensive screen. Lore wise the boxes are quick and easy to replace allowing for fast re-arming after expenditure.
Basically in the context of 40k the tank is designed to fit the needs of the Astartes by acting as a force multiplier that can break heavy targets, transport personnel into the heart of the enemy, lay down suppressive fire and generally act as a cross between a Land Raider and a Drop Pod.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.
People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Because people don't apply the same logic to hating Primaris and the models and still want validation for their quite frankly absurd hatred/criticism they won't apply to elsewhere in the setting.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.
People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.
I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks. Real world combat tactics kind of get tossed out the window when that gets factored in. Drop pods literally disembark Marines directly into enemy fire all the time in the lore and, excluding the Deathwind which is a drop pod full of guns or missiles, have far less fire support than what the Repuslor provides despite being deploted in the same mannwer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Have they kept that concept cannon or has it been retconed along with alot of the other WTF early primara fluff that was nuttier than a squirrel even by 40k standards.
Can't cross rivers or marshes without sinking, can be dropped from orbit and float to the ground.
Seriously I get it's fluff but seriously GW continuity is a thing FFS atleast try.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.
People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.
I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks.
And facing guns that make that 'armor equivalent to that a battle tank' irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.
So you know its wrong, and why its wrong, but you're going to argue about it anyway?
I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks. Real world combat tactics kind of get tossed out the window when that gets factored in. Drop pods literally disembark Marines directly into enemy fire all the time in the lore and, excluding the Deathwind which is a drop pod full of guns or missiles, have far less fire support than what the Repuslor provides despite being deploted in the same mannwer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.
Agreed. The scale of 40k, Epic not withstanding, has all vehicles danger close to the enemy no matter how the game is setup. Tables just aren't big enough even with truncated ranges. Most games I have played allow non-super soldiers to be able to write their names in the dust and mud on a tank in 2 time-units (how ever long you think a round is) if they aren't stopped and really want to. Most armies don't field tank platoons. Those that can, tend to go tank parking lot. That's some remedial level tank combat stuff not done correctly, and 40k can't handle it. Which is fine, 40k is an infantry scale and not mention to simulate real combat in almost any way. Even in the context of the weapons available in the 41/42nd millennium.
This part of the reason I think the argument that facing for vehicles breaks down when trying to base it on realism/verisimilitude for the setting. I think it makes more sense for tank designers in 40k to ensure the armor is evenly distributed given that many designs don't seem to care about weight anyways and the enemy can literally teleport in behind your armor. That's not to say proponents for facing don't still have an argument for game play pursues to attempt for a more dynamic game where maneuver matters more. I personally don't think bringing back vehicle facings adds much given how easy not actually maneuvering on the table can be accomplished in 40k. But that's a different argument more based on preference and opinion.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.
And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.
Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.
People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.
I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks.
And facing guns that make that 'armor equivalent to that a battle tank' irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.
So you know its wrong, and why its wrong, but you're going to argue about it anyway?
By your logic those anti-tank weapons make all vehicles in 40k just as useless.
And it's only wrong in the context of real life, something 40k doesn't abide by. Chainswords are unrealistic. Drop pods are unrealistic. Any large combat robot is unrealistic. Tyranid monsters violate the square cube law (also their feet are too small for their body mass). Space Marines having a solid rib plate is unrealistic andnwould prevent them from breathing. The entire setting runs on things that are "cool" rather than "realistic". Complaining that anything in the setting is "bad" or "stupid" or "kiddie" because it's not realistic isn't an arguement in good faith.
Like what you want to like but don't bs everyone about how realism is suddenly important over 30 years after the game launched.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
In Dark Imperium while fighting Chaos Marines Repulsors are dropped much like a drop pod: directly into the enemy lines to disrupt the enemy, break fortifications and turn a single front into several smaller fronts that are easier to break and crush. This has been part of the Marine doctrine as far back as the Heresy and a method Horus himself used to great success to directly assault enemy commabd locations to break the enemy defense. Having a tank that can support that role ans defend the egress of the passengers is in line with the logic of the setting. "But it has a lot of guns!" Yeah, because it hits the dirt, lays down supressive fire from the door guns (much like how door guns are used on APCs in general), while the turret engages high priority targets. Some of the boxes on the turret are short range grenade launchers that employ a death blossom approach into a mass of the enemy, while others are smoke launchers that can create a defensive screen. Lore wise the boxes are quick and easy to replace allowing for fast re-arming after expenditure.
Basically in the context of 40k the tank is designed to fit the needs of the Astartes by acting as a force multiplier that can break heavy targets, transport personnel into the heart of the enemy, lay down suppressive fire and generally act as a cross between a Land Raider and a Drop Pod.
"Moar guns" was an attempt at an aesthetic description of what the Repulsor looks like to me. It's a Spore tank. The designers stapled more guns to it until its firepower stat got to the point they wanted.
You can explain that it's an in-universe adaptation to a suicidally stupid maneuver, but the "we need guns pointing in every direction so we can shoot everyone when we drop the tank on them!" explanation reads to me like Angry Marines fanfiction. I don't care whether armour tactics in 40k are realistic, I know they're not. I want them to not be a cartoon designed by a twelve-year-old whose entire knowledge of tanks comes from a vague third-hand description in the fluff booklet for a bad video game.
40k has always been a cartoon written aimed at 12 year olds though. You're like 30 years too late to claim anything about realism as a valid complaint of why things are bad.
Like I said, like what you want. It fits the setting in all the insanity the setting already brings (pairing a Land Raider with a Deathwind Drop Pod and crossing that with a Land Speeder). No one is makingg you like that. But complaining about it as not fitting in the setting or not being realistic is just a nonsense arguement.
ClockworkZion wrote: 40k has always been a cartoon written aimed at 12 year olds though. You're like 30 years too late to claim anything about realism as a valid complaint of why things are bad.
Like I said, like what you want. It fits the setting in all the insanity the setting already brings (pairing a Land Raider with a Deathwind Drop Pod and crossing that with a Land Speeder). No one is makingg you like that. But complaining about it as not fitting in the setting or not being realistic is just a nonsense arguement.
I'm trying to complain about it looking ridiculous. I bring up real tanks because I'm trying to argue about verisimilitude (the quality of seeming real enough to not break my suspension of disbelief), not because I think it needs to be more realistic. It's not realistic, sure, doesn't need to be. It fits the Angry Marines cartoon interpretation of the setting, yay, sure, whatever floats your boat. None of that is enough to change the fact that it's stupid.
"The four sponson-mounted machine guns proved to be completely unnecessary."
We very quickly learned that the way to use tanks was to keep them as far from infantry and unswept buildings as possible because they are vulnerable to being swarmed.
In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.
"The four sponson-mounted machine guns proved to be completely unnecessary."
We very quickly learned that the way to use tanks was to keep them as far from infantry and unswept buildings as possible because they are vulnerable to being swarmed.
In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.
You're using real world logic to argue about a setting that things making things bigger is the best way to show how strong they are. Real world logic doesn't apply to anything in the setting, it's all about visual impact. And the idea of a tank smashing down like a meteor, opening up a death blossom of ammunition and then unleashing post human minor demi gods wearing powered tank armour looks cool, even it it makes no damn sense in real life.
ClockworkZion wrote: Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.
You're the one telling me my subjective opinion is wrong because 40k isn't supposed to be realistic.
Nah, I said you can like whatever you want but pretending that realism is an objective yardstick to measure a setting where the laws of physics are treated as guidelines one a good day is fallacious at best.
"The four sponson-mounted machine guns proved to be completely unnecessary."
We very quickly learned that the way to use tanks was to keep them as far from infantry and unswept buildings as possible because they are vulnerable to being swarmed.
In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.
If you want to go down this road you might be playing the wrong game. Bolt action or FOW may be to your liking, or gates of Antares for scifi strives for a little more realism.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're using real world logic to argue about a setting that things making things bigger is the best way to show how strong they are. Real world logic doesn't apply to anything in the setting, it's all about visual impact. And the idea of a tank smashing down like a meteor, opening up a death blossom of ammunition and then unleashing post human minor demi gods wearing powered tank armour looks cool, even it it makes no damn sense in real life.
If you want that why not give these tanks a special rule, something like:
'On Wings of Fire: When this model arrives from reserves all units within 12" take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'
This could represent anything from the blazing engines of a drop pod scorching the landing site to sweeping fire coming from a vehicle to clear its landing area.
With that aspect covered you could then take off the extra guns, which subjectively look fething stupid, and replace them with:
'Clear the Doors: When a model or unit of models disembark from this vehicle, before you place any models, each unit within 12" of this model take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'
Model these as fragmentation projectors, read ERA bricks implanted with ball bearings, and tweak the damage numbers until they feel suitably epic.
Like what you want to like but don't bs everyone about how realism is suddenly important over 30 years after the game launched.
My point is don't dismiss people for 'memes!' when you claim to understand what their criticism is quite well. Its a pointless argument to have when you follow-up by saying you understand what the problem is.
Either/Or wrote: If you want to go down this road you might be playing the wrong game. Bolt action or FOW may be to your liking, or gates of Antares for scifi strives for a little more realism.
Or just make things that are supposed to be cool actually cool. They used to be able to do this, I don't see why they're not able to do so now.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're using real world logic to argue about a setting that things making things bigger is the best way to show how strong they are. Real world logic doesn't apply to anything in the setting, it's all about visual impact. And the idea of a tank smashing down like a meteor, opening up a death blossom of ammunition and then unleashing post human minor demi gods wearing powered tank armour looks cool, even it it makes no damn sense in real life.
If you want that why not give these tanks a special rule, something like:
'On Wings of Fire: When this model arrives from reserves all units within 12" take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'
This could represent anything from the blazing engines of a drop pod scorching the landing site to sweeping fire coming from a vehicle to clear its landing area.
With that aspect covered you could then take off the extra guns, which subjectively look fething stupid, and replace them with:
'Clear the Doors: When a model or unit of models disembark from this vehicle, before you place any models, each unit within 12" of this model take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'
Model these as fragmentation projectors, read ERA bricks implanted with ball bearings, and tweak the damage numbers until they feel suitably epic.
You do know you can take Frag Launchers over the doors instead of the Storm Bolters right? Like it shows them on the website with the frag launchers:
ClockworkZion wrote: You do know you can take Frag Launchers over the doors instead of the Storm Bolters right? Like it shows them on the website with the frag launchers:
Then why include the stupid gun options?
Also, the more I look at that the worse it gets... Why do they have three of the same weapon one in the turret and two more in the hull? Just put a better version in the turret. For that matter, why do you have a co-axial weapon, traditionally used for ranging, along side a laser weapon? Why does the person operating the minigun on the turret need to get out and expose themselves to fire when you can do a remote fire-by-wire system with 1940's technology?
These 'cool' choices aren't cool if you know even the first thing about how weapons and fighting vehicles work. My 12-year-old self who read cutaway books about military vehicles would have called this stupid.
In the context of the setting it's fine. I mean I wouldn't go near one of these in real life with a 10' pole, but GW has released far sillier in the same universe.
The co-axial machine gun (MG) was only used for ranging during the cold war. A ranging MG has to have the exact ballistic performance as the cannon. Co-axial MG's are used for anti infantry work. So you do not need to expend one of your limited shells on every little bunch of grunts. In WW2 tank designers wanted to remove the bow MG so that they can stow more shells but the soldiers in Europe wanted to keep the bow MG.
Also, the more I look at that the worse it gets... Why do they have three of the same weapon one in the turret and two more in the hull? Just put a better version in the turret. For that matter, why do you have a co-axial weapon, traditionally used for ranging, along side a laser weapon? Why does the person operating the minigun on the turret need to get out and expose themselves to fire when you can do a remote fire-by-wire system with 1940's technology?
These 'cool' choices aren't cool if you know even the first thing about how weapons and fighting vehicles work. My 12-year-old self who read cutaway books about military vehicles would have called this stupid.
Hey, I have a Repulsor and Repulsor Executioner. I too would have preferred not to have the auxiliary turrets. However, their existence is not incongruent with space marines or 40k. In fact, they keep the model more in line with the setting which has always been over-the-top and then a little more over. That's what the repulsor frame is equipped with, and if I had a time machine, I use it for more important things than not having unwanted guns on my grav tank models. But yes, even a little knowledge of how vehicles work reveals that pretty much all 40k vehicles are stupid. Most of the time endearingly stupid if you are a 40k fan.
In any event, the Gladiator appears to be moving away from this. Which is good right?
As for exposing themselves to fire to use the pintle mount and everything else, again; this is 40k practically nothing is done the reasonable way. Certainly when discussing space marines. That's just how the setting do. Again, that is Warhammer 40k. If want something a little more grounded, I think you could randomly pick any other sci-fi war setting and get it.
Tygre wrote: The co-axial machine gun (MG) was only used for ranging during the cold war. A ranging MG has to have the exact ballistic performance as the cannon. Co-axial MG's are used for anti infantry work. So you do not need to expend one of your limited shells on every little bunch of grunts. In WW2 tank designers wanted to remove the bow MG so that they can stow more shells but the soldiers in Europe wanted to keep the bow MG.
Your argument for the coax would make sense if in 40k you weren't firing every gun in every shooting phase regardless of facing, range, target, etc. Also, bow MGs may have been desired by the troops in WWII but the hole through the armor and the lack of space for ammo storage/extra equipment meant they got cut in almost every modern design.
Going even further every SM weapon should be a las weapon. Those guns on the Gladiator should be some lasgun/lascannon variation. Bolters nah, give me hotshot lasguns with heavier battery packs and higher thermal tolerances.
You can make 40k cool without making it dumb. If you're going to make it dumb (or keep it dumb) your fluff should stay tongue in cheek and stay within the tone that the game debuted with. I could accept these designs if the fluff was still hammy and over the top with every bit of grim darkness mocking some part of British life or riffing off another franchise. If you want to present yourself as the all-conquering heroes of a galactic empire your models should probably match that.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: As for exposing themselves to fire to use the pintle mount and everything else, again; this is 40k practically nothing is done the reasonable way. Certainly when discussing space marines. That's just how the setting do. Again, that is Warhammer 40k. If want something a little more grounded, I think you could randomly pick any other sci-fi war setting and get it.
I enjoy some of the insanity that is 40k but I enjoyed it far more when the fluff and tone of the fiction matched with the designs. 40k can't try to be cool and edgy while still also being a stupid parody of other sci-fi franchises.
Whatever else you can say about the Gladiator, it's one of the most efficient kits I've ever seen from a gamer's perspective.
If you're willing to do a little extra work a single kit can be built modular to play as any of the three Gladiator variants or as an Impulsor, that's an enormous amount of list-building flexibility for a single kit.
It I were staring cold I'd buy four or five of them and skip the Impulsor kit altogether.
The Newman wrote: Whatever else you can say about the Gladiator, it's one of the most efficient kits I've ever seen from a gamer's perspective.
If you're willing to do a little extra work a single kit can be built modular to play as any of the three Gladiator variants or as an Impulsor, that's an enormous amount of list-building flexibility for a single kit.
It I were staring cold I'd buy four or five of them and skip the Impulsor kit altogether.
For everything, I find offputting about this design hearing this makes me really like the kit. GW charges too much for their plastic, let alone their rules, and anything that makes the game a little easier to play is great in my book.
The Newman wrote: Whatever else you can say about the Gladiator, it's one of the most efficient kits I've ever seen from a gamer's perspective.
If you're willing to do a little extra work a single kit can be built modular to play as any of the three Gladiator variants or as an Impulsor, that's an enormous amount of list-building flexibility for a single kit.
It I were staring cold I'd buy four or five of them and skip the Impulsor kit altogether.
For everything, I find offputting about this design hearing this makes me really like the kit. GW charges too much for their plastic, let alone their rules, and anything that makes the game a little easier to play is great in my book.
It's almost exactly unlike the situation with Tyranids, where the same kit builds both the Exocrine and the Haruspex or the Zoanthropes and the Venomthropes, but there's no way to build it modular and you just wind up with a bunch of extra bits
As much as I have historically hated Primaris and still kind of do dislike them just because some of the stuff feels, dumb. I don't find it that much worse than much of what GW puts out for model kits. You need to take most of it with a grain of salt and just move on.
That said you can hate primaris stuff for correct reasons, I just don't know if the Gladiator is the reason why I would hate them. It ends up more do you like floaty space tank or tracked tank ? All the designs are a bit silly but at some point you need to just accept a games a game and leave reality at the door.
I mean you don't get these types of things with chaos vehicles and some of them are really silly strange logic defying by their very nature.
Like I hate the helldrake kit, think it sucks to try and store and transport unless you build it modular, don't know how it's supposed to actually fly at all, etc, same could be said for many of the flyers in the game that look, perplexing. It's just a game at the end of the day.
It is good to hear the gladiator is good though for getting one kit to build them all if set up right, I like the sound of that at least.
I really don't see what all the arguing is about. Loyalists have lots of options for both floaty tanks and tracked tanks. So just.....play what you like, and let other people play what they like.
Personally, I love shooting the floaty tanks off the table with my old fashioned anachronistic tracked tanks.
Canadian 5th wrote: [
You can make 40k cool without making it dumb. If you're going to make it dumb (or keep it dumb) your fluff should stay tongue in cheek and stay within the tone that the game debuted with. I could accept these designs if the fluff was still hammy and over the top with every bit of grim darkness mocking some part of British life or riffing off another franchise. If you want to present yourself as the all-conquering heroes of a galactic empire your models should probably match that.
I think that you're missing the real joke here. And that's every gamer who takes this stuff seriously.
Everything that costs as much as w40k does becomes serious automaticly. it could be collection of bull buck leafs, and if it costs ąround 800-1000$ it would be serious.
Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?
That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.
But that "suicidal stupidity" IS par for the course in 40k. So, complaining about the "strategy and tactics" of 40k, honestly just sounds like they're not interested in 40k.
Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.
Heard of Drop Pods? Those things which also drop into the lines?
AnomanderRake wrote:I'm trying to complain about it looking ridiculous.
That's cool, but don't paint that as objective, because I don't think it does.
I bring up real tanks because I'm trying to argue about verisimilitude (the quality of seeming real enough to not break my suspension of disbelief), not because I think it needs to be more realistic.
But it DOES fit the verisimilitude of the setting though.
None of that is enough to change the fact that it's stupid.
Again - that's not a fact.
Canadian 5th wrote:Objectively the design is stupid, we know it's stupid because we literally tried this style of design and found out that it didn't work.
Objectively, most 40k designs are stupid. But that's 40k for you.
In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.
In 40k, the "piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries" ARE mini-grenade launchers in their own right.
Canadian 5th wrote:Also, the more I look at that the worse it gets... Why do they have three of the same weapon one in the turret and two more in the hull? Just put a better version in the turret.
Blame the Predator, or Land Raider Terminus Ultra.
Why does the person operating the minigun on the turret need to get out and expose themselves to fire when you can do a remote fire-by-wire system with 1940's technology?
Why haven't I seen you complaining about pintle mounts on every other Space Marine vehicle?
These 'cool' choices aren't cool if you know even the first thing about how weapons and fighting vehicles work. My 12-year-old self who read cutaway books about military vehicles would have called this stupid.
These "stupid" ideas are par for the course in 40k. If you want to criticise them, at least do so across the board, and not just singling out the Primaris.
Canadian 5th wrote:Going even further every SM weapon should be a las weapon. Those guns on the Gladiator should be some lasgun/lascannon variation. Bolters nah, give me hotshot lasguns with heavier battery packs and higher thermal tolerances.
Ah, so you just dislike most of 40k then. Good to know where your argument's coming from, you're just adverse to most of 40k.
40k can't try to be cool and edgy while still also being a stupid parody of other sci-fi franchises.
I really need to have threads like these compiled into an audio-book so I can listen to a discussion about realistic positioning of secondary weaponry on floating tanks while I paint up a giant robot that has a 6 feet klaw on one arm that can fire unguided rokkits while punching something, an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns and a heavy flamer sitting right above the double-doors of the passenger department in its belly.
Jidmah wrote: I really need to have threads like these compiled into an audio-book so I can listen to a discussion about realistic positioning of secondary weaponry on floating tanks while I paint up a giant robot that has a 6 feet klaw on one arm that can fire unguided rokkits while punching something, an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns and a heavy flamer sitting right above the double-doors of the passenger department in its belly.
Jidmah wrote: an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns.
This right her might be the most ork thing possibly imaginable. The only thing that would top it is if somehow it shot smaller gatling guns.
I find it funny that the Gladiator, probabl the most "conservative" of all new Primaris tank design is causing such a debate. It looks like a slightly pimper version of the Predator it's supposed to replace.
Jidmah wrote: an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns.
This right her might be the most ork thing possibly imaginable. The only thing that would top it is if somehow it shot smaller gatling guns.
I find it funny that the Gladiator, probabl the most "conservative" of all new Primaris tank design is causing such a debate. It looks like a slightly pimper version of the Predator it's supposed to replace.
Well, if we're being honest, most of the discussion is actually about the Repulsors.
The gladiator was introduced and largely dropped as a discussion point until magnetizing it came up.
I really need to have threads like these compiled into an audio-book so I can listen to a discussion about realistic positioning of secondary weaponry on floating tanks while I paint up a giant robot that has a 6 feet klaw on one arm that can fire unguided rokkits while punching something, an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns and a heavy flamer sitting right above the double-doors of the passenger department in its belly.
Don't forget certain Land Raider builds where the exit points for troops just happen to have you step right in front of the hull mounted las canons ...
Ah, so you just dislike most of 40k then. Good to know where your argument's coming from, you're just adverse to most of 40k.
Yeah. I mean I don't disagree that there's a ton of "sillines" in 40k, I do feel like lately there's been a certain amount of complaints that really add up to someone wanting the wrong thing out of the setting and just not realizing that they're looking in the wrong place for what they want out of a game and it's associated lore.
fraser1191 wrote: Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.
I'd take that bet. I could even provide you with a list of people that would.
Yeah, most of the complaints seem to be about the actual design of the models, and not their actual effectiveness, which isn't that great because most of them are overpriced. So again, I say, just play the models you like, and don't complain about someone else playing the models they like.
My issue with present-day 40k versus the products of the early oughts 40k is 100% to do with how GW sees and markets the game and the way the fluff has evolved. I have a much higher threshold for embracing an impractical but 'cool' design if the setting and marketing team aren't taking it too seriously.
Current 40k is ultra-serious, big business, and it tries to spread its fluff to be all things to all players (so long as they pain their marines the right color). It's not nearly as charming watching current GW jam poorly written gak at you when they're using the other hand to pull away multi-pose kits, fluff that matched between sources, and affordable armies.
"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?
I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.
And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.
My current complaint for models is more this need for anyone important to either be perched atop something like they need to see further past a bunch of tall people at a concert, or doing their best Captain Morgan impression. There are other ways to show power and importance than that and I wish we'd get some of that back in the sculpts.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?
I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.
And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.
Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?
I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.
And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.
Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.
We have new kits with a wealth of bits, but that was honestly the only truly great thing about those old kits. I sincerely hope that Orks and Nids will see a wealth of options when they're updated.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?
I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.
And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.
My current complaint for models is more this need for anyone important to either be perched atop something like they need to see further past a bunch of tall people at a concert, or doing their best Captain Morgan impression. There are other ways to show power and importance than that and I wish we'd get some of that back in the sculpts.
Honestly if they released Primaris Mk3 armor dudes I'd throw out what I have and buy those in a heartbeat. It's silly how much better Primaris models are overall in terms of scale.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?
I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.
And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.
Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.
We have new kits with a wealth of bits, but that was honestly the only truly great thing about those old kits. I sincerely hope that Orks and Nids will see a wealth of options when they're updated.
The current 'nid line is pretty well loaded with extra bits, they really just need the remaining Finecast options brought over. Since everything else is roughly the same vintage they don't have the huge disparities in quality that exist in some of the other ranges (Finecast excepted of course).
ClockworkZion wrote: "Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?
I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.
And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.
Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.
We have new kits with a wealth of bits, but that was honestly the only truly great thing about those old kits. I sincerely hope that Orks and Nids will see a wealth of options when they're updated.
The current 'nid line is pretty well loaded with extra bits, they really just need the remaining Finecast options brought over. Since everything else is roughly the same vintage they don't have the huge disparities in quality that exist in some of the other ranges (Finecast excepted of course).
I want them updated, if only to see some new Genestealers and fix the split faces on Gaunts.
I want them updated, if only to see some new Genestealers and fix the split faces on Gaunts.
Ah. So you want to glue the front & back of the head together vs left/right sides....
I was thinking they could be more like the Acolyte Hybrid heads and just be a single piece on a neck joint that way the sprue has more room for other options, or just more heads.
fraser1191 wrote: Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.
I would. It’s bad. Way too expensive and way too fragile.
That's just the state of a lot of tanks in 9th.
I feel like tanks and monstrous creatures need a buff so they can only be affected by certain weapons again. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.
ClockworkZion wrote: . Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.
That is a very bad idea considering some armies use their 1D and 2D weapons to destroy stuff. If vehicles had -1D, and dreads kept theirs, it would take a D3 weapon to even start damaging one.
fraser1191 wrote: Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.
I would. It’s bad. Way too expensive and way too fragile.
That's just the state of a lot of tanks in 9th.
I feel like tanks and monstrous creatures need a buff so they can only be affected by certain weapons again. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.
Or just switch to D8/D10 and create a new wounding table. All-or-nothing was bad design for hurting vehicles and AP characteristics and these were good things to abandon. That's one of the few things to actually compliment GW on with 8th/9th.
Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.
Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?
I've been thinking the a way to fix tanks would be to give vehicles a way to ignore AP of low strength weapons. Armored Keyword-treat attacks with a S of say <5 as AP 0. You could then tailor the level ignored based on the vehicle (Armored Sentinel is <4 where a Leman russ <5, etc...) This would not invalidate the low strength high ROF weapons in general, but help make tanks less vulnerable to them while making dedicated Anti-tank weapons have a more viable roll
ClockworkZion wrote: . Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.
That is a very bad idea considering some armies use their 1D and 2D weapons to destroy stuff. If vehicles had -1D, and dreads kept theirs, it would take a D3 weapon to even start damaging one.
I'm assuming it would just be "duty eternal" on everything instead of "duty eternal AND -1 on top".
Vehicles barely even get wounded by damage 1 weapons anyway as it stands because of their high toughness.
The real problem is when things like starcannons become the best choice to kill tank because its a middleground profile that can do any job basically.
Make vehicles/monsters receive -1 damage (up to 0) from any non armorbane/fleshbane weapon.
I feel like the best approach would be greatly increase both the wounds total of Vehicles/Monsters and the Damage of AT weaponry. Alleviates the "one gun fits all" problem.
They could do a better job of using their keyword system too. Ie.
D5 against Vehicle/Monster on heavy hitting melee weapons so they could threaten the new profiles without one shotting infantry characters in duels etc.
Kanluwen wrote: Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.
Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?
Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.
EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".
Kanluwen wrote: Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.
Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?
Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.
EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".
I think gw is just too stingy with 2+ saves. With the buff to Sicarans to 2+ in the Compendium all of the tanks I play now have a 2+ and it helps a lot against the small stuff. Smokescreen helps a lot as well, with it even my tanks that got nerfed to T8 from T9 are more durable to everything but S9, which is about the same, and S8, which is about 10% more effective, which makes sense because those are actual anti-tank weapons. It just costs CP, which wouldn't be so bad if gw hadn't decided the tanks themselves should cost CP in the first place.
Kanluwen wrote: Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.
Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?
Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.
EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".
I think gw is just too stingy with 2+ saves. With the buff to Sicarans to 2+ in the Compendium all of the tanks I play now have a 2+ and it helps a lot against the small stuff. Smokescreen helps a lot as well, with it even my tanks that got nerfed to T8 from T9 are more durable to everything but S9, which is about the same, and S8, which is about 10% more effective, which makes sense because those are actual anti-tank weapons. It just costs CP, which wouldn't be so bad if gw hadn't decided the tanks themselves should cost CP in the first place.
wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )
Kanluwen wrote: Honestly, one of the big misses of the new edition and keywords was that weapons and certain unit types didn't get keyword interplay.
Imagine... if Monstrous Creatures, Tanks, and Heavy Vehicles gained a negative modifier to units attempting to Wound them with Small Arms(Lasguns, Autorifles, Bolters, etc) that do not have a Fleshbane(MC) or Armourbane(Tank/Heavy Vehicle) keyword under their types?
Agreed. If not letting vehicles and monsters Duty Eternal things down to 0 damage would help since it'd mean light weapons wouldn't be worth using against heavy targets and mid tier weapons wouldn't be the all rounders that fill every list. Maybe toss a keyword bonus onto the heaviest weapons so they negate that 1D, but honestly I don't think even negating 1D off them if they have a well balanced floor should be an issue.
EDIT: I don't think vehicles and MCs need a big buff, but they do need something to tip them over the edge from "almost playable" to "decent maybe even good depending on points".
I think gw is just too stingy with 2+ saves. With the buff to Sicarans to 2+ in the Compendium all of the tanks I play now have a 2+ and it helps a lot against the small stuff. Smokescreen helps a lot as well, with it even my tanks that got nerfed to T8 from T9 are more durable to everything but S9, which is about the same, and S8, which is about 10% more effective, which makes sense because those are actual anti-tank weapons. It just costs CP, which wouldn't be so bad if gw hadn't decided the tanks themselves should cost CP in the first place.
wait a minutes..... sicarans have a 2+ now??? :O . time to order myself one, dont know which variant (i wish the big plasma one was 40k legal :( )
It is.....for loyalists. We get the standard Sicaran, the Venator, and the Punisher. Only loyalists get the plasma and missile launcher versions.
Not Online!!! wrote: So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?
Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...
If they respond it's via FAQs and not direct emails.
well, we are within what now 1.5 months of it beeing out and off a quality that just barely reaches above used toiletpaper especially in consideration of the premium pricetag attached.
One wonders.
Not Online!!! wrote: So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?
Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...
If they respond it's via FAQs and not direct emails.
well, we are within what now 1.5 months of it beeing out and off a quality that just barely reaches above used toiletpaper especially in consideration of the premium pricetag attached.
One wonders.
They did an initial FAQ, we're not due one until the next big FAQ in the spring. I'm not sure what expectations you have, but they don't line up with reality.
Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
Not Online!!! wrote: Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.
Not Online!!! wrote: Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.
Nothing to do with entitlement, when you feth up you fix up.
Or does your boss allow you to deliever such a lackluster job and not expect you to fix it up`? Because sure as hell i'd get called on it.
Not Online!!! wrote: Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.
Nothing to do with entitlement, when you feth up you fix up.
Or does your boss allow you to deliever such a lackluster job and not expect you to fix it up`? Because sure as hell i'd get called on it.
You clearly don't get how long it can take to fix these things. Just because this stuff doesn't slap you in the face right after it gets turned in doesn't mean it's not being worked on. Heck, some of the "problems" might not even be problems and might be balanced out by other stuff coming later. Give it time, see how it shakes out.
Not Online!!! wrote: Normal ones. Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response. Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.
Nothing to do with entitlement, when you feth up you fix up. Or does your boss allow you to deliever such a lackluster job and not expect you to fix it up`? Because sure as hell i'd get called on it.
You clearly don't get how long it can take to fix these things. Just because this stuff doesn't slap you in the face right after it gets turned in doesn't mean it's not being worked on. Heck, some of the "problems" might not even be problems and might be balanced out by other stuff coming later. Give it time, see how it shakes out.
There's a whole thread, with gems like no transport capacity Gorgons. Non martial legacy to the rarest Land raider type for chaos. Fellblades with 25 man transport capacity Fellblades that have diffrent ammo for a copy and paste job with keyword switch Wrongly assigned Symbols for units finding themselves in elite instead of fast assault. rapiers outright failed again at Copy paste.
Not Online!!! wrote:So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?
Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...
No, nothing yet. Not even the stock "consult rules, roll dice" response. Probably due to being swamped with questions.
ClockworkZion wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote: Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.
Yes, there is: Roughly a month after the book's release. That's the schedule they've been following with the new releases for 9th. This ones probably being delayed due to the holidays. You seem to have FAQs for new rulebooks confused with the annual Big FAQ.
I feel like tanks and monstrous creatures need a buff so they can only be affected by certain weapons again. Maybe a built in -1 to damage that can turn D1 weapons into D0 or something.
That would help, but even just reducing the points on a lot of them would help. I feel like they're still suffering from the arbitrary points hike GW did to "have less models on the table so the game goes faster". Like many predicted, reducing by an average of 120 points had zero effect on game length, but really borked quite a few units. Tanks with lots of guns in particular.
Regarding the quality of the Compendium - did they ever address why they didn't use pictures in the unit entries? I would not have guessed ahead of time that it would make that much difference, but the book literally feels unfinished to me without them.
A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.
That would help, but even just reducing the points on a lot of them would help. I feel like they're still suffering from the arbitrary points hike GW did to "have less models on the table so the game goes faster". Like many predicted, reducing by an average of 120 points had zero effect on game length, but really borked quite a few units. Tanks with lots of guns in particular.
Regarding the quality of the Compendium - did they ever address why they didn't use pictures in the unit entries? I would not have guessed ahead of time that it would make that much difference, but the book literally feels unfinished to me without them.
i'd rather vehicles become tougher and keep their current cost than become cheaper and be spammed. It makes little sense to me that 10 intercessors are more resilient than a rhino, it should be the other way around.
As for the compendium, they basically addressed nothing so far.
kirotheavenger wrote: A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.
As you're pointing out, this is exactly the problem with their God awful wounding chart. It's in desperate need of a revamp.
kirotheavenger wrote: A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.
As you're pointing out, this is exactly the problem with their God awful wounding chart. It's in desperate need of a revamp.
Or just go back to the old one, with the caveat that everything can wound anything on 6s. Then remove any strategems and abilities that alter the wounding table (votlw, Transhuman Physiology, Salamanders super doctrine, etc).
I'd like to scrap stratagems altogether. Or at least cut them down dramatically.
I didn't mind the start of 8th when you only had the 3 stratagems in the rulebook. Nothing major but a little something to bonk a roll every now and again.
Now the whole game seems to be building and positioning a group of units to pop off your combination of stratagems. And there's so many to choose from, it's too many to mentally keep track of as just an occasional player.
I print off a list of my favourite ~6 and damned be the rest.
And that's just my army's stratagems, got knows what combo-trap I'm innocently walking into.
Well that is why you have to train. No matter how initialy good someone is, to grow gaming skills one has to train non stop. Even just to not forget stuff for the most often played armies.
kirotheavenger wrote: I'd like to scrap stratagems altogether. Or at least cut them down dramatically.
I didn't mind the start of 8th when you only had the 3 stratagems in the rulebook. Nothing major but a little something to bonk a roll every now and again.
Now the whole game seems to be building and positioning a group of units to pop off your combination of stratagems. And there's so many to choose from, it's too many to mentally keep track of as just an occasional player.
I print off a list of my favourite ~6 and damned be the rest.
And that's just my army's stratagems, got knows what combo-trap I'm innocently walking into.
Karol wrote: Well that is why you have to train. No matter how initialy good someone is, to grow gaming skills one has to train non stop. Even just to not forget stuff for the most often played armies.
But I don't want to manage card combos. I want to outmanoeuvre and outsmart.
40k is a game that focuses on models, not cards. Stratagems do the opposite.
i'd rather vehicles become tougher and keep their current cost than become cheaper and be spammed. It makes little sense to me that 10 intercessors are more resilient than a rhino, it should be the other way around.
Definitely see where you're coming from with that, but I'm more looking at the newer Marine vehicles, rather than all vehicles across the board. I should have been more clear with that. I wouldn't want something like Gladiators or Repulsors to be so cheap they can be spammed either, but with the loss of fly, even the Impulsor is now not really worth its points. What's the point of it even being a "hover" platform now?
I can agree they need to be tougher, but I still think a points drop to where you could see, say a Repulsor and a Repulsor Executioner in one army and not have that be a full 3rd of the armies points would be good.
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
That's fair enough but it feels like there should at least be a middle ground. Like you can clear "X type of terrain", etc.
EDIT:
And I'm saying this as one of the most vocal "Marines need to be reigned in" members on Dakka! lol
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.
Yeah, a HOVER keyword or something.
Then difficult terrain could say that HOVER or FLY units ignore it, something along those lines.
But of all the issues in 40k, this isn't the hill I'd die on.
kirotheavenger wrote: A problem with vehicles it that they're all either T7 or 8, and 2+ or 3+ save, with a ~dozen wounds. They all feel essentially the same.
If they spread that out a bit, having some T9 vehicles maybe. I'd like to suggest 1+ armour saves but I'll have to say reduce AP by one, because 1+ doesn't work so well.
Then don't be afraid to hike up the strengths of AT weapons. As it is, it doesn't matter if it's S9 or S10, you're wounding and tank on 3s. But if that was S14 or S16, now you're seeing a difference.
Or, roll back the double = 2+ system go back to the old 3 higher = 2+. Then toughnesses and strengths make more sense as they appear now.
As you're pointing out, this is exactly the problem with their God awful wounding chart. It's in desperate need of a revamp.
Or just go back to the old one, with the caveat that everything can wound anything on 6s. Then remove any strategems and abilities that alter the wounding table (votlw, Transhuman Physiology, Salamanders super doctrine, etc).
I really believe that there should be a willingness to explore how to do a wounding chart on a D8 or D10
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.
I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.
And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.
I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.
And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.
well.. hover could pay the pts for the benefits that it gives.
So hover vehicles would be more expensive and tracked vehicles would be cheaper.
There's many reasons we don't have hover combat vehicles. Another key thing to remember is that we don't have anti-gravity technology and no idea how such a thing would even work.
So the comparison is largely irrelevant.
Unit1126PLL wrote: it depends on the mechanism of hovering - generally, the reason we don't have hover combat vehicles IRL is that they're easily disabled.
So maybe widen the range of the Immobilized result on the damage chart f-
oh wait no that's not a thing anymore. Uh, 3+ armor instead of 2+ it is!
Uh if memory serves me right, Skimmers were actually more durable during each AV era compared to treaded tanks.
Unit1126PLL wrote: it depends on the mechanism of hovering - generally, the reason we don't have hover combat vehicles IRL is that they're easily disabled.
So maybe widen the range of the Immobilized result on the damage chart f-
oh wait no that's not a thing anymore. Uh, 3+ armor instead of 2+ it is!
Uh if memory serves me right, Skimmers were actually more durable during each AV era compared to treaded tanks.
Depended what you meant by durable.
Raw statline wise, not typically. Also depended whether a skimmer was a Fast Skimmer or not. A Falcon with Holofields was incredibly durable, overpowered even. Landspeeders were very NOT-durable, dying to immobilized results while having tissue paper armor. Hammerheads were about as durable as Predators, but overall less so since an immobilized counted as destroyed (like for all skimmers). They could buy the Landing Gear upgrade if they really wanted to though to avoid this problem, returning them to parity with Predators but at a cost.
Really, there was a wide array of vehicles in earlier editions. If you took, say, a Leman Russ and made it into a skimmer while making no other changes, it would lose durability (since immobilized results killed it).
In later editions, Skimmers could Jink (giving them 4+ cover) but were required to snapfire if they did so. I personally disagreed with this change, as while something like a Falcon could jink, a Hammerhead was much less likely to be able to (it isn't capable of flying like an aircraft) and certainly not something like a Gladiator, if it had existed.
But my suggestion has very little to do with earlier editions because it's a suggestion from scratch - aside from making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the absence of a vehicle damage model in 40k.
There's many reasons we don't have hover combat vehicles. Another key thing to remember is that we don't have anti-gravity technology and no idea how such a thing would even work.
So the comparison is largely irrelevant.
IMO you've gone wrong anytime you try to pull from a "real life" situation in order to inform rules in the 40k universe. It just doesn't work. In real life, there's not a single pistol that can't shoot past the end of a main battle tank. In 40k, there are many. In real life, we don't have functioning jet packs, in 40k we do. In real life you can't just instantly teleport a battleship off the coast of whatever enemy you want to kill in order to sneak attack them with your entire navy, in 40k, you can. It just doesn't work.
well.. hover could pay the pts for the benefits that it gives.
So hover vehicles would be more expensive and tracked vehicles would be cheaper.
I feel like the main thing they have tried to give hover vehicles over the years is speed and maneuverability. I could see keeping the points somewhat similar between tracked and hover vehicles, but with the tradeoff that maybe tracked vehicles have higher toughness and slightly more wounds, where hover vehicles have higher movement and can clear a lot of terrain without having to go around it. As it stands right now, being a "hover" vehicle is laregly pointless imo.
I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?
I do, however, remember my local GW staff member declaring my Hammerhead immobilised and snapping off the flying base, declaring "oh sorry, I thought you would have magnetised it" and scurrying off into the back room.
But I don't think "hover" should really have any inherent disadvantages to it. There should just be a general tendancy for hover vehicles to be lighter and faster.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?
I do, however, remember my local GW staff member declaring my Hammerhead immobilised and snapping off the flying base, declaring "oh sorry, I thought you would have magnetised it" and scurrying off into the back room.
But I don't think "hover" should really have any inherent disadvantages to it. There should just be a general tendancy for hover vehicles to be lighter and faster.
"Lighter" would suggest less durability, so less armour/wounds/toughness. They can't just be the same, only faster/more maneuverable. There have to be advantages and disadvantages, otherwise there isn't a choice, it's just a question of which is better.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?
I do, however, remember my local GW staff member declaring my Hammerhead immobilised and snapping off the flying base, declaring "oh sorry, I thought you would have magnetised it" and scurrying off into the back room.
But I don't think "hover" should really have any inherent disadvantages to it. There should just be a general tendancy for hover vehicles to be lighter and faster.
"Lighter" would suggest less durability, so less armour/wounds/toughness. They can't just be the same, only faster/more maneuverable. There have to be advantages and disadvantages, otherwise there isn't a choice, it's just a question of which is better.
Yeah, but that's on the guys constructing the data sheets.
It shouldn't be some inherent rule intrinsic to having hover. Just a general tendancy across the data sheets.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't remember immobilised Skimmers being destroyed in 5th, are you sure that wasn't a 4th ed thing?...
It had to have moved Flat Out on the previous turn, which required the Fast type; you wouldn't have seen it much in Tau.
I remember that.
I got the impression from the comments people were saying they were always wrecked if they were immobilised.
Someone mentioned landing gear - which I specifically don't remember being a potentia upgrade either.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.
I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.
And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.
Because the 80 ton ones can't carry enough engine to allow them to fly? I mean, what do you thinks making the thing weigh 300+ tons?
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.
I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.
And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.
Because the 80 ton ones can't carry enough engine to allow them to fly? I mean, what do you thinks making the thing weigh 300+ tons?
we can already have small model planes fly just like b-52 bombers.... i'd assume the same applies to 40k. If you transport a lightweight vehicle, you don't need as big of an engine.
kirotheavenger wrote: I don't think that hover should necessarily have FLY.
FLY is jumping over buildings and units. Hovering 3 inches off of the floor shouldn't grant that.
yeah, we have hoverboats IRL and they can't jump over buildings.
Hover should allow you to ignore dangerous terrain and thats it.
I could live with that, but there would have to be some drawback for hover vehicles, or advantages for tracked vehicles. Maybe tracked vehicles have better armour? So 3+ for floaty tanks, 2+ for tracked.
And bizarrely, gw let the biggest floaty tank, the Astraeus, keep the FLY keyword. So the 80 ton ones can't do it, but the 300+ ton one can. Makes sense.
Because the 80 ton ones can't carry enough engine to allow them to fly? I mean, what do you thinks making the thing weigh 300+ tons?
we can already have small model planes fly just like b-52 bombers.... i'd assume the same applies to 40k. If you transport a lightweight vehicle, you don't need as big of an engine.
Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.
Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.
with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.
But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.
Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.
with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.
But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.
Better off without it. The dunecrawler has about the same firepower as the gladiator lancer for about 60 points less. Lancer might be slightly more durable but I'd say the durability is a wash with one being t8 and the other having a 5++ with reroll 1's. The only practical difference is maneuverability - which they are charging the lancer way too much fore and they still removed fly keyword from it.
GW typically has a problem understanding power level in their game. Marines clearly needed a cut back. But units that were already bad...didn't really need a nerf, Esp not a tripple or quad nerf like repulsors and impuslors got.
Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.
with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.
But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.
Better off without it. The dunecrawler has about the same firepower as the gladiator lancer for about 60 points less. Lancer might be slightly more durable but I'd say the durability is a wash with one being t8 and the other having a 5++ with reroll 1's. The only practical difference is maneuverability - which they are charging the lancer way too much fore and they still removed fly keyword from it.
The only reason why Gladiators/Repulsors/Astraeus have the fly/hover/whatever they have now keyword is because of the model itself, not because of the rules. Theyre all hover vehicles.
Both skorpius variants have a hovercraft look to them (and were even marketed as hovering tanks).
And the skorpius are especially good because they fill niches that admech never had before (codex transport and artillery).
Removal of fly keyword was just an attempt to nerf marine units that didn't need to be nerfed. Which is too bad - removal of fly made the impulsor/ repuslors even more unplayable.
with the nerf to the fly keyword, removing the gravitic backlash rule couldve been enough probably.
But then i'd expect the admech Dunerider to gain the fly keyword.
Better off without it. The dunecrawler has about the same firepower as the gladiator lancer for about 60 points less. Lancer might be slightly more durable but I'd say the durability is a wash with one being t8 and the other having a 5++ with reroll 1's. The only practical difference is maneuverability - which they are charging the lancer way too much fore and they still removed fly keyword from it.
The only reason why Gladiators/Repulsors/Astraeus have the fly/hover/whatever they have now keyword is because of the model itself, not because of the rules. Theyre all hover vehicles.
Both skorpius variants have a hovercraft look to them (and were even marketed as hovering tanks).
And the skorpius is only good because they fill niches that admech never had before (codex transport and artillery)
The are anti grav tanks. There is no practical reason why anti grav wouldn't work at any altitude. Not to mention they have rocket thrusters. They should have fly keyword. It was removed because marines needed to be nerfed. Flying tanks is OP man.
The Repulsor is so heavily armed and armoured that it does not skim over the landscape in the manner of a Space Marine reconnaissance craft like the Land Speeder, but instead crushes the ground below it. The tank grinds forward with a deep bass thrum, reducing rock to gravel and fallen bodies to smears of gore and powdered bone.
Taken from the warhammer40k wiki. Read the exact same description in BL books.
They 100% do not fly up in the sky like land speeders. Theyre basically the same as Skorpius, low to the ground vehicles that don't use tracks/wheels
Alcibiades wrote: Remember when 8th came out and people were complaining that vehicles were too tough?
nope, i started playing a month before codex Space wolves came out. Did people actually freak out about that lol?
Yes.
But to be fair many of our fello games will lose thier gak over almost any addition or change to the rules. Or the model ranges. Or both. Or the lack of changes. Or.... So its not like you need to treat alot of the noise as anything but.
They were upset that vehicles couldn't be killed in a single shot, then the points changes came out as the edition evolved and most vehicles became pretty bad.
ClockworkZion wrote: They were upset that vehicles couldn't be killed in a single shot, then the points changes came out as the edition evolved and most vehicles became pretty bad.
ClockworkZion wrote: They were upset that vehicles couldn't be killed in a single shot, then the points changes came out as the edition evolved and most vehicles became pretty bad.
Alcibiades wrote: Remember when 8th came out and people were complaining that vehicles were too tough?
I don't. If you did any amount of math, or saw any vehicles on the same table as a unit of Hellblasters, you'd have seen vehicles were way too squishy from launch of 8e on top of getting way more expensive.
Alcibiades wrote: Remember when 8th came out and people were complaining that vehicles were too tough?
Of the vehicles that actualy were being used, you are not going to tell me that eldar flyers with stacking of minus to hit or the pre nerf castellan weren't tough.
I don't think many people thought that stuff like normal dreads, pre sm 2.0, or land raiders or chimeras were just the right level of tough to be used.
Alcibiades wrote: Remember when 8th came out and people were complaining that vehicles were too tough?
I don't. If you did any amount of math, or saw any vehicles on the same table as a unit of Hellblasters, you'd have seen vehicles were way too squishy from launch of 8e on top of getting way more expensive.
Guilliman and mass Razorbacks says hi. To which you will no doubt say "but that's Guilliman" - sure, but if those Razorbacks (or Stormravens) could just be swept off the table it would have been something else.
I don't remember a mass freakout - nothing compared to "Necrons OP because 240 points of X can't clear 20 reanimating Necron warriors" - but the reality is on release of 8th the premier anti-tank option for many factions was the equivalent of "guy holding a lascannon". Which cost 25 points. Which made them very fragile and not especially reliable or capable.
It was as 8th ran on, as anti-tank got reduced in price, and buff stacking became more available that ye olde vehicles just couldn't hack it at all. Through to today where tanks can offer 150-200% returns to dedicated anti-tank units.
Alcibiades wrote: Remember when 8th came out and people were complaining that vehicles were too tough?
Of the vehicles that actualy were being used, you are not going to tell me that eldar flyers with stacking of minus to hit or the pre nerf castellan weren't tough.
I don't think many people thought that stuff like normal dreads, pre sm 2.0, or land raiders or chimeras were just the right level of tough to be used.
eldar flyers werent a thing at the start of 8th, and neither were castellans (the model litterally did not exist).
The guilliman assback spam was because of firepower, not durability.
Just like Basilisk spam. Basilisks are not tough, but for a while in 8th they had a phenomenal gun for their points (man, imagine the earthshaker being a good gun. Lethality has certainly escalated).
As for Landing Gear et. al., those are indeed from editions before 4th, as were the immobilized=wrecked rule. When I talk about "Older Editions" I tend to mix them into a big grab bag, because the point is usually that "the right answer is in here somewhere. The fact that GW threw it out sometime whenever isn't the point". GW throws out right answers all the time in favor of other answers.
Immobilized skimmers being wrecked was a thing of 4th for sure, it was the edition i began with. Before Hull points were a thing and when facing mattered... god how many games dragged on with endless debates whether a shot hit side or rear...
Page 115 – Chaos Space Marine Datasheets
Add the following:
‘Many Chaos Space Marine units described in this section can be
fielded in Death Guard and Thousand Sons armies even though
you cannot normally replace the <Legion> keyword with either
Death Guard or Thousand Sons.
You can choose for any <Legion> Nurgle unit from the Imperial
Armour Compendium to be from the Death Guard Legion. If you do:
• Replace that unit’s <Legion> keyword with Death Guard.
• That unit gains the Bubonic Astartes keyword.
• That unit can be from one of the seven Plague Companies,
and so also gains the <Plague Company> keyword.
You can choose for any <Legion> Tzeentch unit from the
Imperial Armour Compendium to be from the Thousand Sons
Legion. If you do:
• Replace that unit’s <Legion> keyword with Thousand Sons.
• That unit gains the Arcana Astartes keyword.
• That unit can be from one of the nine Great Cults, and so also
gains the <Great Cult> keyword.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The guilliman assback spam was because of firepower, not durability.
Just like Basilisk spam. Basilisks are not tough, but for a while in 8th they had a phenomenal gun for their points (man, imagine the earthshaker being a good gun. Lethality has certainly escalated).
I think its always a function of both. As you say, lethality goes up, so relatively durability goes down.
Razorbacks were quite silly with their 12 S6 AP-1 1 damage shots for 100 points (this weirdly doesn't seem so crazy any more) - but they also brought 10 T7 wounds. Basilisks had what, 11 T6 wounds? That's potentially a lot of wounds to get through if your opponent is relying on comparatively low-buffed D6 damage weapons to do the job.
Which is why in Europe you occasionally saw things like Chimera spam win tournaments (I think ITC's "kill something/kill more" sort of forbade that style of list.)
Roughly a month after the book's release, fancy that.
Mostly fixing typos, it seems. Chaos and Relic Contemptors still cost 1CP more than plastic codex Contemptors, inexplicably. Both Fellblade Accelerator Cannon profiles officially stuck at Index level stats. Double melee weapon Contemptors still don't get a bonus attack, while all other dreadnoughts that can have two melee weapons do. Martial Legacy is still a garbage rule.
Good to see Death Guard and Thousand Sons can still have Legion vehicles. And Bubonic Astartes doesn't replace HERETIC, it's in addition to it. Seems gw still recognizes them as Legions after all. Good.
Good to see Death Guard and Thousand Sons can still have Legion vehicles. And Bubonic Astartes doesn't replace HERETIC, it's in addition to it. Seems gw still recognizes them as Legions after all. Good.
Exactly. I'm not even going to look at anything else in the FAQ. Just gonna take my small victory and run with it!
Roughly a month after the book's release, fancy that.
Mostly fixing typos, it seems. Chaos and Relic Contemptors still cost 1CP more than plastic codex Contemptors, inexplicably. Both Fellblade Accelerator Cannon profiles officially stuck at Index level stats. Double melee weapon Contemptors still don't get a bonus attack, while all other dreadnoughts that can have two melee weapons do. Martial Legacy is still a garbage rule.
Good to see Death Guard and Thousand Sons can still have Legion vehicles. And Bubonic Astartes doesn't replace HERETIC, it's in addition to it. Seems gw still recognizes them as Legions after all. Good.
CSM got the Vindicator laser destroyer back too. My email about missing sicarans probably came too late :(
Good to see Death Guard and Thousand Sons can still have Legion vehicles. And Bubonic Astartes doesn't replace HERETIC, it's in addition to it. Seems gw still recognizes them as Legions after all. Good.
Exactly. I'm not even going to look at anything else in the FAQ. Just gonna take my small victory and run with it!
Aye, this is good for Death Guard and Thousand Sons. Too bad you still have to pay CP for most of the units though.
Roughly a month after the book's release, fancy that.
Mostly fixing typos, it seems. Chaos and Relic Contemptors still cost 1CP more than plastic codex Contemptors, inexplicably. Both Fellblade Accelerator Cannon profiles officially stuck at Index level stats. Double melee weapon Contemptors still don't get a bonus attack, while all other dreadnoughts that can have two melee weapons do. Martial Legacy is still a garbage rule.
Good to see Death Guard and Thousand Sons can still have Legion vehicles. And Bubonic Astartes doesn't replace HERETIC, it's in addition to it. Seems gw still recognizes them as Legions after all. Good.
CSM got the Vindicator laser destroyer back too. My email about missing sicarans probably came too late :(
The Vindicator Laser Destroyer was available to the Legions in 8th, this is probably just fixing the omission, like the one for the Karybdis in CA2020. No reason not to keep pestering them about the other issues, like the missing Sicarans.
Still looks like running fluffy Night Lords lists will mean paying a CP tax for the foreseeable future. Guess I'll just take the hit. How about you Vlad?
The Vindicator Laser Destroyer was available to the Legions in 8th, this is probably just fixing the omission, like the one for the Karybdis in CA2020. No reason not to keep pestering them about the other issues, like the missing Sicarans.
Still looks like running fluffy Night Lords lists will mean paying a CP tax for the foreseeable future. Guess I'll just take the hit. How about you Vlad?
Eh, i don't mind that much paying 1CP for my levi. Its good enough to be worth it.
Now i just need to convert myself some uncorrupted chosen from my MK4 kit, probably lightning claws + meltas that i'll drop in with my dreadclaw.
I've been liking my bikers and raptors a lot, i'll need to get more of those.
I'm still waiting on FW to release their contektar termies so that i can get a squad + a land raider proteus to carry them.
The Vindicator Laser Destroyer was available to the Legions in 8th, this is probably just fixing the omission, like the one for the Karybdis in CA2020. No reason not to keep pestering them about the other issues, like the missing Sicarans.
Still looks like running fluffy Night Lords lists will mean paying a CP tax for the foreseeable future. Guess I'll just take the hit. How about you Vlad?
Eh, i don't mind that much paying 1CP for my levi. Its good enough to be worth it.
Now i just need to convert myself some uncorrupted chosen from my MK4 kit, probably lightning claws + meltas that i'll drop in with my dreadclaw.
I've been liking my bikers and raptors a lot, i'll need to get more of those.
I'm still waiting on FW to release their contektar termies so that i can get a squad + a land raider proteus to carry them.
Leviathans having Martial Legacy makes some sense, they were rare even during the Heresy. Contemptors, not so much. Particularly since loyalists can get them without the 1CP surcharge. Sicarans at least got a durability buff that helps soften the sting. But paying an additional 1CP for my Legion Super Heavys over any other LOW in the game is .
Still hoping Night Lords get some kind of "Daemons Are For Losers" rule that let's them ignore Martial Legacy in exchange for not using DAEMONIC keyword units. I can dream.
Not Online!!! wrote: So far i didn't hear from that Email in aeons.
Btw Gad did you finally hear something from there?
Granted maybee they attempt to let grass grow over and then fix it up, considering the quality was "outstandingly high"...
If they respond it's via FAQs and not direct emails.
well, we are within what now 1.5 months of it beeing out and off a quality that just barely reaches above used toiletpaper especially in consideration of the premium pricetag attached.
One wonders.
They did an initial FAQ, we're not due one until the next big FAQ in the spring. I'm not sure what expectations you have, but they don't line up with reality.
ClockworkZion wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote: Normal ones.
Frankly i am sure that it could even be argued that the lackluster and nonfunctioning gakshow that the compendium was warrants an more immediate response.
Alas GW as allready mentioned in another thread, rarely get's hold to task by it's community.
There is literally a schedule for this stuff. Complaining that they aren't exceeding that schedule rings of entitlement.
You had the FAQ for the Compendium confused with the Big Spring FAQ. Just a bit of a joke, sorry for the confusion.
Leviathans having Martial Legacy makes some sense, they were rare even during the Heresy. Contemptors, not so much. Particularly since loyalists can get them without the 1CP surcharge. Sicarans at least got a durability buff that helps soften the sting. But paying an additional 1CP for my Legion Super Heavys over any other LOW in the game is .
Still hoping Night Lords get some kind of "Daemons Are For Losers" rule that let's them ignore Martial Legacy in exchange for not using DAEMONIC keyword units. I can dream.
I'm still missing a ton of vehicles for my NL, right now theyre mostly infantry but i still need :
Land raider proteus
A deimos predator (thats sadly either gonna be legend or a count-as regular pred)
A contemptor
A sicaran
Maybe a supreheavy but i dont play at high pts level that often.
Luckily for me i'm less of a "puritain" when it comes to demons than you, my army does have a daemon engine contingent in it so i already have a decent amount of vehicles with them (blood slaughterer, disco lord, decimator)
ClockworkZion wrote:I own up that I did, that said the "day one" FAQ is usually around a month after release so it's on schedule.
On time, but lackluster. Still plenty of stuff they missed. If they'd just remove Martial Legacy from Contemptors and the LOWs and give Contemptors back their extra attack for double melee weapons I'd be happy.
That and fix the wording on Dreadclaws so they can deploy their cargo when they arrive. Otherwise, what's the point?
Leviathans having Martial Legacy makes some sense, they were rare even during the Heresy. Contemptors, not so much. Particularly since loyalists can get them without the 1CP surcharge. Sicarans at least got a durability buff that helps soften the sting. But paying an additional 1CP for my Legion Super Heavys over any other LOW in the game is .
Still hoping Night Lords get some kind of "Daemons Are For Losers" rule that let's them ignore Martial Legacy in exchange for not using DAEMONIC keyword units. I can dream.
I'm still missing a ton of vehicles for my NL, right now theyre mostly infantry but i still need :
Land raider proteus
A deimos predator (thats sadly either gonna be legend or a count-as regular pred)
A contemptor
A sicaran
Maybe a supreheavy but i dont play at high pts level that often.
Luckily for me i'm less of a "puritain" when it comes to demons than you, my army does have a daemon engine contingent in it so i already have a decent amount of vehicles with them (blood slaughterer, disco lord, decimator)
Definitely get a Contemptor. The Night Lords Contemptor is wicked. I've heard that the Proteus kit can be a pain, let me know how it turns out. Sicarans are much better now that they have a 2+ save. Got Dreadclaws?
Also, that's probably the first time I've ever been called a "puritain".
Edit: And "Ark of Unnameable Horror" was a way better name for the Chaos Proteus's special rule than "Exploratory Augury Web".
Spring FAQ is when I expect to see the more complete IA update honestly. There is only so much that will get seen before they have to cut off the questions and finalize the changes before they release. I know parts of the internet are sure they should work on these documents until they're due, but a line has to be drawn somewhere if they have and hope of getting things done with any level of accuracy.
Definitely get a Contemptor. The Night Lords Contemptor is wicked. I've heard that the Proteus kit can be a pain, let me know how it turns out. Sicarans are much better now that they have a 2+ save. Got Dreadclaws?
Also, that's probably the first time I've ever been called a "puritain".
Edit: And "Ark of Unnameable Horror" was a way better name for the Chaos Proteus's special rule than "Exploratory Augury Web".
Yeah contemptor is 100% on my list. I didnt get one yet because i just finished painting two of them for my Thousand sons and i dislike painting the same model multiple times.
Proteus is my favorite visuals on tanks in 40k. Big tracks that go over the hull does something to my nether regions. I'm 100% gonna use it for the various land raider types (achilles, chaos, proteus).
Got a single dreadclaw right now, still unpainted because i gotta find some corpse bits or something to put on it.
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.
.