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.

Grimtuff wrote:To repeat, as it appears to have got lost or ignored in this morass of a thread, this is what word of god says WRT IG tanks:

...Take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th Century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutley no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays.
IG tanks don't have the proper sloped armour and that is quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.

The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.

This. I used to be upset about the design themselves myself, until this subtlety was pointed out to me. The Imperium of Man is not a glorious futuristic empire. Technology and Science are chalked up to Magic. Ignorance reigns supreme. IIRC, the Leman Russ was based on a tractor design (the Land Crawler) that was cheap to manufacture en mass. It isn't designed to be a proper main battle tank, that's just the role its given because there is a need for one and the Leman Russ is all they have. The Imperium just needed a lot of cheap tanks is all.

And realize a scale Rhino would be close to Land Raider actual size. Flyers are annoyingly large enough, I wouldn't want to deal with a ton of to-scale Rhino chassis for my Space Wolves when I decide to hitch a ride...

Meh give me aesthetically pleasing (which to be fair GW usually do very well) over realism anyday.

In all honesty, I'm of the opinion of if you're gonna nit-pick about a single part of a fictional universe that may be unrealistic, you might as well throw out everything else that's unrealistic in that universe. To repeat as others have said, this is a universe centered around magical space demons, super genetically modified super soldiers who worship a corpse on a throne, space elves, and fungal space ape creatures that make things work by simply willing it to work with their latent psychic abilities- regardless of physics.

Things like ground clearance on tanks aren't exactly on my list of things that need to make sense in a universe of things that don't really make sense. Then again I'm primarily a 'nid player so... that may be why I don't care as much about realism.

What amazes me is the constant its in the future and has demons and monsters so its okay to design crap vehicals argument. A crap vehicle is a crap vehicle. Or its fantasy sci fi so its OK to be crap. Its not and no amount of cop out arguments about the future or the setting gets around the fact that lazy design is lazy design. When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics then thats lazy and no amount of its not important dont worry about it arguments change that. It is clearly important to some people on here especially when they charge top money for sloppy work. If a tank or ATV can't cross a damp field because of simple design flaws then that's nothing to do with backward or outlawed technology, so the Russ was designed of a tractor, because the imperium needed cheap tanks? Presumably the tractors could cross fields? These are not arguments they are apologetic excuses for poorly thought out policies on vehical design.

Has anyone considered the lack of cats in the game? Deplorable!

Yeah, no Space Marine chapters based on cats. Just sickening.

And Gerbils are strangely absent as well.

Another example of a low IFV for the record here



This one might actually be rigged lower then the Chim, and like the Chim it's amphibious.

You know, I am totally with the OP on this thread. Not only that, it's been my beef for decades. If you want to put something on the ground with treads and call it a "Tank," even if it's modeled after a "Tractor" your designs fall apart by housing it the way other vehicles use wheels. Treads need to be a lot more dominant to give that strong tank feeling that Rhinos and LR units just don't give. The Leman Russ more than anything is designed to feel like an early 20th c. tank, but the skinny treads and illogical housing leave it in the category of old mounted WFB units with horses that looked like your knights were charging Skaven on a team of Shetland ponies.

However, I have a bone to pick over this statement about the Stormtalon: "The space marine thing is a joke IMO. Its a badly designed uglybrick which many player are already trying to convert." Personally I think it's gorgeous. It's The Pivotal Reason I finally scrapped my Necron Army and am building an IG/Marine army now. It so harkens to the Ridley Scott James Cameron vision of clunky angular space opera. It screams Heinlein like nothing SM has since the Drop Pod. Plus, if we could put a F-117 in the air in 1981, some Imperium Mechanic can rig enough autostabilizers to make a Stormtalon fly any way she wants to. The Stormtalon for me is the ultimate combination of fantasy hi tech piled all together in a semi-plausible way that totally fits with the same suspension of disbelief that throws up all over the board every time I dump 12 nobs out of this bad boy:

Ciaphas wrote:What amazes me is the constant its in the future and has demons and monsters so its okay to design crap vehicals argument. A crap vehicle is a crap vehicle. Or its fantasy sci fi so its OK to be crap. Its not and no amount of cop out arguments about the future or the setting gets around the fact that lazy design is lazy design. When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics then thats lazy and no amount of its not important dont worry about it arguments change that. It is clearly important to some people on here especially when they charge top money for sloppy work. If a tank or ATV can't cross a damp field because of simple design flaws then that's nothing to do with backward or outlawed technology, so the Russ was designed of a tractor, because the imperium needed cheap tanks? Presumably the tractors could cross fields? These are not arguments they are apologetic excuses for poorly thought out policies on vehical design.

you're sidestepping. nothing more.

Now, fair enough. you dislike what you see as badly designed vehicles - you want them to re real/true to life/to scale. fair enough. But why are you focusing solely on tanks? Why are you getting so hung up on one small area, when to be perfectly frank, its not all that relevant? Personally, i have far more of a beef with 7foot tall genetically engineered space marines that are the same height, width, and bulk as a 5 and a half foot tall guardsman. I have even more of an issue with the fact that a marines head is about the size of his torso, and that his hands are the size of his head. or bigger, especially old marines! Or the fact that the shoulder pads would prevent any and all peripheral vision, as well as restricting most arm movements - they're not very clever designs. i would go further and point out my dislike of the scale of the bolter- because apparently, bolt shells fires by marines must have a radius of about three inches! basic biological laws of how we gain energy from food (how much energy we put in to digestion, versus what we get out) basically invalidate tyranids as an entire concept, as simply, there is no way they should be able to do what they do. and then there are orks. Who make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I dont get why you're ridiculing what others have said. frankly, i think its more than a bit sdtonishing and amusing that someone is going off on the unrealistic design of tanks, with a lack of ground clearance and ignorance of basic physics when, essentially, everything about this whole damned game/universe can fall into that category! to be fair, he'd have a point, if everything else was done "right and proper", and was designed along the lines of reality. but thats not the case.


And at the end of the day, i dont have a beef with it, because i get "why" its done this way. its the design aestrhetic of the game. the scale is "heroic". its not meant to be "real". its a representation. key word, that. its "fun", and "escapism". hence the big hands, huge heads, oversized weapon barrels, and all that jazz. GW didnt go into this business, and decide to take short cuts and "not bother" with things. their work is not "sloppy". its not that they dont give a damn. |its a design aesthetic, and frankly, its nothing more than that. they did not go into this business to make things real, and therefore to fail spectacularly at everything. No, they went into the business to make cool, heroic figures. As i said, if you're getting so hung up with one small aspect of the game that is out of whack with reality, how can you accept the rest of it.

variable wrote:You know, I am totally with the OP on this thread. Not only that, it's been my beef for decades. If you want to put something on the ground with treads and call it a "Tank," even if it's modeled after a "Tractor" your designs fall apart by housing it the way other vehicles use wheels. Treads need to be a lot more dominant to give that strong tank feeling that Rhinos and LR units just don't give. The Leman Russ more than anything is designed to feel like an early 20th c. tank, but the skinny treads and illogical housing leave it in the category of old mounted WFB units with horses that looked like your knights were charging Skaven on a team of Shetland ponies.

However, I have a bone to pick over this statement about the Stormtalon: "The space marine thing is a joke IMO. Its a badly designed uglybrick which many player are already trying to convert." Personally I think it's gorgeous. It's The Pivotal Reason I finally scrapped my Necron Army and am building an IG/Marine army now. It so harkens to the Ridley Scott James Cameron vision of clunky angular space opera. It screams Heinlein like nothing SM has since the Drop Pod. Plus, if we could put a F-117 in the air in 1981, some Imperium Mechanic can rig enough autostabilizers to make a Stormtalon fly any way she wants to. The Stormtalon for me is the ultimate combination of fantasy hi tech piled all together in a semi-plausible way that totally fits with the same suspension of disbelief that throws up all over the board every time I dump 12 nobs out of this bad boy:

Lol, I see what your getting at, enjoy it and keeping dropping them nobs. I havent really got a big issue with the flyers at least some thouht has gone into them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:What amazes me is the constant its in the future and has demons and monsters so its okay to design crap vehicals argument. A crap vehicle is a crap vehicle. Or its fantasy sci fi so its OK to be crap. Its not and no amount of cop out arguments about the future or the setting gets around the fact that lazy design is lazy design. When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics then thats lazy and no amount of its not important dont worry about it arguments change that. It is clearly important to some people on here especially when they charge top money for sloppy work. If a tank or ATV can't cross a damp field because of simple design flaws then that's nothing to do with backward or outlawed technology, so the Russ was designed of a tractor, because the imperium needed cheap tanks? Presumably the tractors could cross fields? These are not arguments they are apologetic excuses for poorly thought out policies on vehical design.

you're sidestepping. nothing more.

Now, fair enough. you dislike what you see as badly designed vehicles - you want them to re real/true to life/to scale. fair enough. But why are you focusing solely on tanks? Why are you getting so hung up on one small area, when to be perfectly frank, its not all that relevant? Personally, i have far more of a beef with 7foot tall genetically engineered space marines that are the same height, width, and bulk as a 5 and a half foot tall guardsman. I have even more of an issue with the fact that a marines head is about the size of his torso, and that his hands are the size of his head. or bigger, especially old marines! Or the fact that the shoulder pads would prevent any and all peripheral vision, as well as restricting most arm movements - they're not very clever designs. i would go further and point out my dislike of the scale of the bolter- because apparently, bolt shells fires by marines must have a radius of about three inches! basic biological laws of how we gain energy from food (how much energy we put in to digestion, versus what we get out) basically invalidate tyranids as an entire concept, as simply, there is no way they should be able to do what they do. and then there are orks. Who make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I dont get why you're ridiculing what others have said. frankly, i think its more than a bit sdtonishing and amusing that someone is going off on the unrealistic design of tanks, with a lack of ground clearance and ignorance of basic physics when, essentially, everything about this whole damned game/universe can fall into that category! to be fair, he'd have a point, if everything else was done "right and proper", and was designed along the lines of reality. but thats not the case.


And at the end of the day, i dont have a beef with it, because i get "why" its done this way. its the design aestrhetic of the game. the scale is "heroic". its not meant to be "real". its a representation. key word, that. its "fun", and "escapism". hence the big hands, huge heads, oversized weapon barrels, and all that jazz. GW didnt go into this business, and decide to take short cuts and "not bother" with things. their work is not "sloppy". its not that they dont give a damn. |its a design aesthetic, and frankly, its nothing more than that. they did not go into this business to make things real, and therefore to fail spectacularly at everything. No, they went into the business to make cool, heroic figures. As i said, if you're getting so hung up with one small aspect of the game that is out of whack with reality, how can you accept the rest of it.

Your rambling. Nothing more.
Your post lacks any direction or focus. You complain about everything and then say you 'get it' so its OK. And because many of us don't ' get it' we are somehow hung up with one small aspect of the game. If you 'get it ' well done, some of us id say about half the posters, don't. And this is a discussion that I started about some of the vehicals, not the whole GW range.
What always happens on here when someone questions something they don't like about GW is the grabbing of pitchforks to get the heretic. We pay our money, we make the models, some of us play the game. We have the right to criticsize an aspect of the behemoth that is GW if we want to. Even if we don't all ' get it'.

Ciaphas wrote:When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics.

Modern day real life Physics have no bearing on it.

If they did bolters and lasguns would be able to kill things more than 24 inches away, drop pods would not work at all, Warp travel would be impossible, Gigantic Space Hulks would not exist, Thunderhawk gunships would not exist, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons, Meltaguns, and fusion blasters would not exist, models would not be able to ascend ruins that do not have ladders on them, Jump packs would not exist, and units would never miss a vehicle in close combat if it was moving slower than a normal trooper can walk.

These are all things that we need to suspend our disbelief just a bit to view the world as something that could be their (Not our) reality.

They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.

Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.

The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.

McNinja wrote:. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.

Really? How?

..Not that I, uh.. want to destroy the world.. of course... Just wanna know for, uh... Academic. Reasons.

Yeah.

I did not say bolters wound not work, their range is extremely short for what we know of modern day ballistics, and we also do not know what the physics are like in the Sci-Fantasy universe that is 40K

It does not have to work on the same physics that we have come to know, things can change a lot in 38,000 years. There are not records of what happened 38,000 years ago, but just 2000 years ago they thought that the earth was the center of everything, and was flat.

In fact things like Stormravens, Thunderhawks, and Landspeeders would not be able to fly and Drop Pods would not be able to land safely when dropped from orbit under what we know as Physics yes somehow they do just fine in our simulations.

DeathReaper wrote:Modern day real life Physics have no bearing on it.

Plasma Cannons would not exist.

Aye, plasma is a very unstable molecular state. In order to shoot it at someone you'd either use it as a flame thrower or have incredibly powerful magnetic containment fields to keep a sort of "plasma bolt" together. So if you shoot it at longer range why don't enemies use the same containment fields to protect themself? Or better yet, use the incredibly powerful containment field itself as a weapon and skip the unstable plasma in the first place?

Plasma is a staple weapon in Science Fantasy (or Space Opera) and that's what the rest of WH40K is too. People applaud Star Trek for making kids want to learn science but the show has nothing to do with it, it's mostly just techno babble where real terms are used to make something sound plausible if you have no idea about what the terms mean. If you want hard scifi look somewhere else than a GrimDark miniature game set in the Far Future where there's only war...

So who is to say what kind of gravity the planets 38,000 years in the future have?

The IG Chimera could be barely touching the ground because the gravity is so low on all of these worlds.

You find Stormravens "No problem" even though the wingspan would not even come close to providing enough lift for a craft even half its size, let along a full sized one carrying 12 troopers in power armor, and a ten tonne dreadnought on the back in the magna-grapple, but the design of the IG Chimera makes you all bent out of shape about realism?

Interesting take on it.

Ciaphas wrote: One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.

Ciaphas wrote:The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918.

Minor historical error, Tanks were first used in 1916 during the Somme fighting, and more extensively in 1917.

I had a good look around for my chimera model, but unforunately couldn't find it. However, I don't remember it having a particulary bad ground clearance, probably about the same as the ww1 designs they are vaguely based on.

According to one site the ground clearance of a chimera is 0.45 meters. This is actually pretty decent, most tanks, past and present, have something around that. The MkIV british tank of WW1 (the main version used during the war) had a slightly lower ground clearance than that. The German first attempt at a tank had far less than that, and a modern M1 is just greater than that.

I'm not sure of the scale of the models, the vehicles always seem out of scale to the troops. But a 28mm/heroic scale would mean that ground clearance on the chimera model should be around 8mm give or take a tiny bit.

mwnciboo wrote:M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

That would make the M1 exert more psi than the ww1 MkIV, The one source I coud find showing ground pressure listed it as 13psi fully loaded.

My main gripe with awkward vehicles are the new storm talon I think it's called that marines get. What the hell is up with the front/rear size imbalance? The thing looks like a goddamn pelican with the xbox hueg front half, and then the rear is thin like a proper plane and has the wings.... That thing would be constantly tipped forward, it's nose dragging on the ground.

God, I HATE THAT MODEL NOW! Just thinking about it is like making me cringe with how bad it is.

I stand by my assertion that 40k models are not proper fluff representations. All vehicles are too small and wrongly proportioned.

The LRBT would be wider and longer if it was true scale. and by extension its tracks would be as well. The gun would be smaller relative to the turret and such.


The models themselves are not realistic representations of the 'real' thing.

I wish GW would bring their models into true scale with each other. Guardsmen should be smaller and tanks need to be scaled up. base it all around the current Marine models.

I think when discussing particularly IG is that GW is leveraging our real world expectations to sell the line. IG has always been about playing off of popular ideas of contemporary Earth armies and I think it's pretty fair to call BS when they model a tank design and sell it using nostalgia and popular familiarity with IRL tank designs but they fudge something so basic as tread design.

It's all well and good to say "It's the Future" about alien tech, but IG ground transport don't get hover tech, they depend of big treads and wheels much the same way we do, which implies Earth like gravity and 20thc like tech. If they've got some kind of antigrav to get poorly designed tread through difficult terrain, why don't they have Eldar grav tanks instead? The reason is that GW designers wanted to play off the look and feel of old earth vehicles, which were built for old earth physics--so it's a non-starter to defend the Leman Russ by chanting "Space Opera." The very appeal of the LR tank depends on its resemblance to the tanks we used around WWI.

variable wrote:so it's a non-starter to defend the Leman Russ by chanting "Space Opera." The very appeal of the LR tank depends on its resemblance to the tanks we used around WWI.

The game is space opera(ish), and the tanks do 'resemble' the tanks we used around ww1. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, space opera can take stuff we are used to and fudge it to be out of proportion, but that is not the same as saying it no longer 'resembles' . The very fact that many people keep referring to ww1 tanks demonstrates that we immediatley see the resemblance. If you are getting hung up on tread design (i.e minutae) then space opera/fantasy is probably not the thing for you, but something more 'hardcore sci-sfi', based on real physics/mechanics.

Ciaphas wrote:

Your rambling. Nothing more.
Your post lacks any direction or focus. You complain about everything and then say you 'get it' so its OK. And because many of us don't ' get it' we are somehow hung up with one small aspect of the game. If you 'get it ' well done, some of us id say about half the posters, don't. And this is a discussion that I started about some of the vehicals, not the whole GW range.
What always happens on here when someone questions something they don't like about GW is the grabbing of pitchforks to get the heretic. We pay our money, we make the models, some of us play the game. We have the right to criticsize an aspect of the behemoth that is GW if we want to. Even if we don't all ' get it'.

Rambling? meh. No, not really. there is plenty focus and direction. firstly, im not "complaining". Nor am i grabbing a pitchfork. Im simply pointing out that personally, i can see plenty things that dont make sense in this game. its an observation. frankly though, at the end of the day, these things dont bother me. Pick your reasons. Its a game. fictional universe. "rule of cool". heroic scale. I just think its odd that you have so many issues with what you see as badly designed, unrealistic vehicles, when there is so much else about the game that is badly designed and unrealistc.

As i asked, how is it that you can get over everything else, but not that? Indeed, criticise all you want-youve got every right to have your POV and your say, but in my mind, some criticisms (price, company direction, balance etc) bear more weight than others. This? Well, it just seems a bit pointless, really. As i said, you've got issues with unrealistc vehicles, but somehow, you dont have issues with the rest of the unrealism that permeates the 40kiverse... Personally, id put all the unrealism together and not bother about it, rather than picking and choosing whats OK to be unrealistic, and whats not, and you know my take on it already. Meh, YMMV.

puree wrote:

Ciaphas wrote: One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.

Ciaphas wrote:The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918.

Minor historical error, Tanks were first used in 1916 during the Somme fighting, and more extensively in 1917.

I had a good look around for my chimera model, but unforunately couldn't find it. However, I don't remember it having a particulary bad ground clearance, probably about the same as the ww1 designs they are vaguely based on.

According to one site the ground clearance of a chimera is 0.45 meters. This is actually pretty decent, most tanks, past and present, have something around that. The MkIV british tank of WW1 (the main version used during the war) had a slightly lower ground clearance than that. The German first attempt at a tank had far less than that, and a modern M1 is just greater than that.

I'm not sure of the scale of the models, the vehicles always seem out of scale to the troops. But a 28mm/heroic scale would mean that ground clearance on the chimera model should be around 8mm give or take a tiny bit.

mwnciboo wrote:M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)

That would make the M1 exert more psi than the ww1 MkIV, The one source I coud find showing ground pressure listed it as 13psi fully loaded.

It would probably be closer to 6" on a Chimera, its side skirting / armour, is almost level with the ground, only a few inch of track is visable beneath the side armour, the moment it went offroad, the side skirting would dig in and stop the thing dead. It would even scrape over a sleeping policeman (speedhump).

I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. The Chimera is an APC.
That has a few feet clearance, the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality



I actually want to add some Bradleys to my IG, just need to find the right scale, don't get me wrong, I like Chimera's, but I have 9 already. A few Bradleys would mix it up a little.

hashrat wrote:
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality

No I was thinking about the chimera, is still has the obvious ww1 feel to it. But I do remember seeing the first landraiders released and thinking WTF!, first world war tanks in a futuristic game (I had never played or read 40k stuff at that point, so knew nothing of the setting).

Admittedly, I had forgotten about the side skirts, but that doesn't really look that much different to something like a matilda, which had very low down almost to ground skirts.



The clearance on matildas was about the same as any other tank, give or take an of inch or 2 (varied by model).

The ground clearance on a bradley, by the way, is less than a 'few feet', its about 18".

I think people have some what mistaken views on tank/armor ground clearnces, they assume it is higher than it is. ~18" is about normal, most tanks past and present have been within an inch or 2 of that. Tanks on the whole seek to be as low to the ground as they can get away with (smaller target), and rely on very low ground pressure to avoid grounding issues.

If you are getting hung up on tread design (i.e minutae) then space opera/fantasy is probably not the thing for you,

Nobody is "hung up on tread design" that's a red herring a lot of people are using to dismiss the very real and explicitly detailed point that there are many things about the LRBT that distract people who enjoy the hyper realism of IG armies in particular, and other armies not so particular. Perhaps if you are getting so hung up on discussions of minutiae about space opera/fantasy then perhaps an online forum focused around 40k is not for you.

variable wrote: the hyper realism of IG armies in particular,

That's a new one to me. I'm really not sure what you mean by that?

Nobody is "hung up on tread design" that's a red herring a lot of people are using to dismiss the very real and explicitly detailed point that there are many things about the LRBT

All of which are minutae though (or the ones I've seen mentioned, size of gun, how do the men fit inside, tread, ground clearance etc). They may be explicitly detailed points, but this isn't a realistic/detailed game, it is gothic/space-opera/fantasy. I would have said it was the opposite of hyper realistic. Exagerated/bizarre proprtions of many models etc are part and parcel of the whole setting.

It's designed to look cool, not actually be build. This game is not real. Considering that there are daemons and witches in it, you are clearly overreacting or trolling.

And it's not like this exact same argument hasn't been made literally hundreds of times before.

*sits at the bar with the other regulars and watches the fireworks*

Psienesis wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.

318 tons? Hah, no. Most major bridges cap out at 10-15 tons, with smaller, "country road" bridges having a listed safety maximum of 5 tons.

Not interested in the dicussion really but bridge sizes, feth yeah.

Tower Bridge has a weight limit of 18 tonnes per car. Pretty sure it can take 318.
The Clifton Suspension Bridge couldn't, obviously
In most temperate areas though, the kind of places where you'd want armour - wide open grassland, anything with a bridge could be easily forded anyway. And with the baneblade's size a small nuclear reactor is actually viable. And if you allow a huge amount of energy generation, it becomes a lot more believable.

That's a new one to me. I'm really not sure what you mean by that?

The IG reflects modern warfare in the 20th century. Most, if not all distinct guard armies reflect a historical army or war that can be pretty clearly identified, Russian front in WWII, WWIcentral europe, US Army in vietnam (Rambo style), etc. with a peppering of lasguns and melta, but with a familiar foundation exaggerated to play off archetypes. These ideas are heavily inspired by writers like Heinlein and Herbert who both wrote Hard Science Fiction that involved regular humans going up against some pretty fantastic stuff, but the Human base was always very hard sci fi in a fantastic universe.

They may be explicitly detailed points, but this isn't a realistic/detailed game, it is gothic/space-opera/fantasy.

So what? Really? Why does being G/S-O/F have any bearing on a reality where I think the LRBT would look better with some big old fat treads instead of some skinny , pencil thin strips that wouldn't get a tricycle out of a sand box?

Exagerated/bizarre proprtions of many models etc are part and parcel of the whole setting.

Again, so what? I agree with you, but that has no bearing on anything argued by me at least. If GW made a new Guardsman Marbo fig wearing crocs with a multi-melta in each hand we'd all agree that crocs were probably not what a guard would find practical in a battle setting. We might even agree that those multi-meltas are a bit much. Your argument would have to be that the character modeled after John Rambo can wear whatever he wants because it's sci-gothic-fantasy. There's no reason it's not fair game to argue that maybe, Guardsman Marbo ought to be wearing Combat Boots, and there's no reason it's not fair game to argue that the LRBT should be equipped with more tread than the equivalent of Ice Skates on a polar bear.