Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

iproxtaco wrote:I know right! And the Victorian frocks they all wore whilst crewing them!

Another thing, stop attributing the term NATO to a particular style.

But hold on let me quote a wiki article on NATO and then still get it wrong.

I still don't understand why the Valkyrie is 'NATO', the term being the title for a treaty of mutual defense and not a particular style.

Apparantly down graded orca fighters are NATO.

If anything the IG are more Warsaw Pact than NATO....but I don't really understand how he is treating NATO as a style...

Red Comet wrote:I can understand if you have a legitimate argument as to why the designs are uninspired, but so far I've just seen you say how bad the nids are and how uninspired 40k is. This is an argument. Its just trolling and its funny.

He has criticised the IoM tanks too, on the grounds they are obvious rip-offs of earlier designs.

Doesn't anyone have any good counter-arguments?

At this rate he'll win the thread by default.

Kazerkinelite wrote:If anything the IG are more Warsaw Pact than NATO....but I don't really understand how he is treating NATO as a style...

I blame call of duty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Red Comet wrote:I can understand if you have a legitimate argument as to why the designs are uninspired, but so far I've just seen you say how bad the nids are and how uninspired 40k is. This is an argument. Its just trolling and its funny.

He has criticised the IoM tanks too, on the grounds they are obvious rip-offs of earlier designs.

Doesn't anyone have any good counter-arguments?

At this rate he'll win the thread by default.

Problem is hes an obvious troll so no ones really giving an effort to win, and as I stated earlier in the thread 40k intentionally draws upon the past for almost everything........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank

During construction, to conceal their true identity as weapons, they were designated as water carriers for the Mesopotamian campaign and referred to as "tanks" (as in "water tank").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_tank

Water Tank , as in water tank that accompanies a steam engines boiler.

If ever there was a tank that helped defined the very meaning of the phrase "steam tank " it was the WW1 tank that has been dropped into the SM army and renamed as a land raider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_carrier_for_Mesopotamia.jpg

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440176a&prodId=prod1560025&rootCatGameStyle=


The silhouette , sponson placement and front center section are identical . The only notable change is that the top of the tracks are enclosed. But the tracks do follow the ww1 path exactly explaining why the SM tank is identical in silhouette.







Now if a was a SM commander , and a Landraider rolled onto my parade i would step out in front of it and tell them to return it to the junk keep it came from.

" get that rust heap out of here , I wouldn't even give it the IG for target practice ! "


dont get me wrong , I love the style of the ww1 tank, GW has left the key design well alone A+ ...but what is it doing in a SM Army parade ??? GW should design an army on a steampunk theme , the WW1 tank would take pride of place in that army.










You see Its not what GW have done with the WW1 tank they have plonked into their universe... Its where they have put it !

They could create an entire WW1 style army and gently dust it with 40k

Or

They could create an entire steampunk styled army , in which the WW1 tank , with a little dust of steam punk ala' 40k would fit right in.

In my mind these are the only two armies that the WW1 tank / Landraider should be in. Neither of these armies exist right now , but they could and very probably should....GW would then find me emptying my pockets on the counter to buy either of these strongly styled cohesive armies with out complaint.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Red Comet wrote:I can understand if you have a legitimate argument as to why the designs are uninspired, but so far I've just seen you say how bad the nids are and how uninspired 40k is. This is an argument. Its just trolling and its funny.

He has criticised the IoM tanks too, on the grounds they are obvious rip-offs of earlier designs.

Doesn't anyone have any good counter-arguments?

At this rate he'll win the thread by default.

Yeah, by looking at every tank ever made, the IG are a conglomerate of several designs, not a direct rip-off of any specific one.

Couldn't Resist!

iproxtaco wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Red Comet wrote:I can understand if you have a legitimate argument as to why the designs are uninspired, but so far I've just seen you say how bad the nids are and how uninspired 40k is. This is an argument. Its just trolling and its funny.

He has criticised the IoM tanks too, on the grounds they are obvious rip-offs of earlier designs.

Doesn't anyone have any good counter-arguments?

At this rate he'll win the thread by default.

Yeah, by looking at every tank ever made, the IG are a conglomerate of several designs, not a direct rip-off of any specific one.

Which strangely is what the real military does.........


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:Couldn't Resist!

.....I fething love you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

swuk wrote:

Now if a was a SM commander , and a Landraider rolled onto my parade i would step out in front of it and tell them to return it to the junk keep it came from.

" get that rust heap out of here , I wouldn't even give it the IG for target practice ! "


dont get me wrong , I love the style of the ww1 tank, GW has left the key design well alone A+ ...but what is it doing in a SM Army parade ??? GW should design an army on a steampunk theme , the WW1 tank would take pride of place in that army.










You see Its not what GW have done with the WW1 tank they have plonked into their universe... Its where they have put it !

They could create an entire WW1 style army and gently dust it with 40k

Or

They could create an entire steampunk styled army , in which the WW1 tank , with a little dust of steam punk ala' 40k would fit right in.

In my mind these are the only two armies that the WW1 tank / Landraider should be in. Neither of these armies exist right now , but they could and very probably should....GW would then find me emptying my pockets on the counter to buy either of these strongly styled cohesive armies with out complaint.

I had respect for you William Shatner. Calling a land raider a rusted POS though draws the line, its a fething badass transport, and it minmaxes transport size with armor, and lets face it sponsons are always badass, and IG strategy is pretty much ww1(look at Commander Chenkov) and I wouldnt touch a steampunk army with a 10 foot pole, hell I dislike them because of the fact if I bring a gas mask to airsoft anytime most people think steampunk fanboy rather than ''heh that guy needs to spend less money on militaria and more on getting a life"

The Land Raider silhouette is not identical to the Mark I. The LR is the other way round to start, the front is raised off the ground, everything is more angular. Between the tracks is raised to create a hatch as this is a transport vehicle. Saying that a real SM commander would order a LR to go away is laughable, as SM commanders seem to get on with them really well in fluff. The vehicle is obviously derived from sources, the Mark I influence is obvious. However, the concept of the Land Raider is absolutely perfect for what the SM need, and is a design which makes sense from a technical perspective.

The IG are more of a Red Army WW II influenced force in my opinion. Large amount of standard equipped and inexperienced troops steamrollering the enemy with weight of firepower, large use of mass-produced tanks and other vehicles, a general concentration on armour. Troops gain large amount of experience over time, becoming veterans very quickly.

ref " Yeah, by looking at every tank ever made, the IG are a conglomerate of several designs, not a direct rip-off of any specific one "

and that in a nutshell is my general complaint , better to rip off one style eg NATO+ or build your own style. In the case of IG , it is meant to be the square side , they have spoil it by ripping form many areas diluting its raison d'etre . There was no need to do this. If you cant create NATA+ then just copy NATO & voilà , you now have a cohesive army with a distinct style that does what it says on the tin....no complaints....no confusion.



as most of the 40k armies seems to rip off this, that and the other from all over the place they destroy their own theme & uniqueness

If it was the odd unit / vehicle here and there its not so bad. You can retain your style. By the time you have added the umpteenth topping to your pizza you are left with a mouthful of everything. Each flavor battling for supremacy on your tongue.

Its like an icecream,curry pizza garnished with brandy and champagne

swuk wrote:ref " Yeah, by looking at every tank ever made, the IG are a conglomerate of several designs, not a direct rip-off of any specific one "

and that in a nutshell is my general complaint.


as most of the 40k armies seems to rip off this, that and the other from all over the place they destroy their own theme & uniqueness

If it was the odd unit / vehicle here and there its not so bad. You can retain your style. By the time you have added the umpteenth topping to your pizza you are left with a mouthful of everything. Each flavor battling for supremacy on your tongue.

Its like an icecream,curry pizza garnished with brandy and champagne

That sounds delicious.

Curry ice cream wouldn't be bad.

Sounds like a dessert pizza, really.

swuk wrote:ref " Yeah, by looking at every tank ever made, the IG are a conglomerate of several designs, not a direct rip-off of any specific one "

and that in a nutshell is my general complaint.


as most of the 40k armies seems to rip off this, that and the other from all over the place they destroy their own theme & uniqueness

If it was the odd unit / vehicle here and there its not so bad. You can retain your style. By the time you have added the umpteenth topping to your pizza you are left with a mouthful of everything. Each flavor battling for supremacy on your tongue.

Its like an icecream,curry pizza garnished with brandy and champagne

Well militaries have always gone with what works, and the design works for them, also remember technology has gone down the crapper since the Emperor was last able to leave the Golden Throne

swuk wrote:ref " Yeah, by looking at every tank ever made, the IG are a conglomerate of several designs, not a direct rip-off of any specific one "

and that in a nutshell is my general complaint.


as most of the 40k armies seems to rip off this, that and the other from all over the place they destroy their own theme & uniqueness

If it was the odd unit / vehicle here and there its not so bad. You can retain your style. By the time you have added the umpteenth topping to your pizza you are left with a mouthful of everything. Each flavor battling for supremacy on your tongue.

Its like an icecream,curry pizza garnished with brandy and champagne

No idea what your point is. Yes, there are derivations in certain parts, but all of it comes together to form something that is no longer a bland and un-unique concept. The Leman Russ is something that we haven't seen before, because the designers and artists at GW have taken certain ideas TO MAKE SOMETHING ORIGINAL.

Actually... now that I think about it a Leman Russ without the turrett resembles the WW1 tank more than a Land Raider does (if you have a Russ somewhere near you with a turrett that has not been glued in place take the turrett off and look at the tank for a second).

The Land Raider and the Leman Russ are copied from British tanks of WW1.

The Rhino is copied from the British FV432.

The Chimaera is copied from the Soviet BMP.

GW did these copies then crossed them over so there is no basic design aesthetic to either the IG or SM vehicle parks.

Eldar and Tau vehicles have a well defined aesthetic, though.

Deldar are pretty obvious derived from Jabba The Hut's Sand Yacht.

The Ork aesthetic is clearly banger racing.

gaovinni wrote:Actually... now that I think about it a Leman Russ without the turrett resembles the WW1 tank more than a Land Raider does (if you have a Russ somewhere near you with a turrett that has not been glued in place take the turrett off and look at the tank for a second).

deffinately not the best example that could have been given, but looking at the Storm Toaster and the Valkyrie/Vendetta they are original and interesting(Big whoop if it uses a name from norse mythology)

Kilkrazy wrote:The Land Raider and the Leman Russ are copied from British tanks of WW1.

The Rhino is copied from the British FV432.

The Chimaera is copied from the Soviet BMP.

GW did these copies then crossed them over so there is no basic design aesthetic to either the IG or SM vehicle parks.

Eldar and Tau vehicles have a well defined aesthetic, though.

Deldar are pretty obvious derived from Jabba The Hut's Sand Yacht.

The Ork aesthetic is clearly banger racing.

You kinda missed my point.

One request to you Swuk. Explain this "NATO style" somehow.

I still have no idea what the OP is talking about. It's like reading a book of nonsense.

I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Really now, I think that's the whole point of this thread.

No. I think your point is wrong.

The elements don't come together to form an original and unique concept. They just look like fethed up copies (in the case of IoM). They look like no-one bothered to put any design work into the armies.

That's the difference with the Eldar and Tau armies. A designer has clearly thought about an aesthetic that carries through all the units so the whole collection of vehicles looks like it was created by the same species/faction/race/army command whatever you like to call it.

The Deldar also have design consistency, even though they are not original.

Xca|iber wrote:I still have no idea what the OP is talking about. It's like reading a book of nonsense.

I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Really now, I think that's the whole point of this thread.

Read it like Captain Kirk, it really does help, if nothing else you laugh really fething hard

Kilkrazy wrote:No. I think your point is wrong.

The elements don't come together to form an original and unique concept. They just look like fethed up copies (in the case of IoM). They look like no-one bothered to put any design work into the armies.

That's the difference with the Eldar and Tau armies. A designer has clearly thought about an aesthetic that carries through all the units so the whole collection of vehicles looks like it was created by the same species/faction/race/army command whatever you like to call it.

The Deldar also have design consistency, even though they are not original.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I can see that IG vehicles are not absolute rip-offs, not really bothered if you can't.

I was imagining him as Doc Oc all this time... (just finished watching all 5 seasons of spiderman XD)

iproxtaco wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:No. I think your point is wrong.

The elements don't come together to form an original and unique concept. They just look like fethed up copies (in the case of IoM). They look like no-one bothered to put any design work into the armies.

That's the difference with the Eldar and Tau armies. A designer has clearly thought about an aesthetic that carries through all the units so the whole collection of vehicles looks like it was created by the same species/faction/race/army command whatever you like to call it.

The Deldar also have design consistency, even though they are not original.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I can see that IG vehicles are not absolute rip-offs, not really bothered if you can't.

+1

Kilkrazy wrote:That's the difference with the Eldar and Tau armies. A designer has clearly thought about an aesthetic that carries through all the units so the whole collection of vehicles looks like it was created by the same species/faction/race/army command whatever you like to call it.

While I do agree with you, the mismatched design profiles of the IOM stuff does suit the whole "recovering technology and putting it to use" idea of the lost STC's.

I wont say Tau are original, they looks ALOT like the Droid tanks in star wars

Kilkrazy wrote:No. I think your point is wrong.

The elements don't come together to form an original and unique concept. They just look like fethed up copies (in the case of IoM). They look like no-one bothered to put any design work into the armies.

That's the difference with the Eldar and Tau armies. A designer has clearly thought about an aesthetic that carries through all the units so the whole collection of vehicles looks like it was created by the same species/faction/race/army command whatever you like to call it.

The Deldar also have design consistency, even though they are not original.

Yeah well the IoM is the Human race....so of course when making models you're going to be influenced by militaries throughout history(I mean would you like to see some ultra futuristic tank with IG, no). While when it comes to tau, eldar, etc. they have the liberty of making more unique armor. And personally I love the way the IoM is made up and I personallly think eldar and tau, are quite stupid(no offense to any player out there, each to his own)