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.

Isn't that the same argument as the "If the black box survives the plane crash, why not make the plane out of that stuff!". I don't think it works that way.

The black box survives because the box itself is needlessly sturdy and the recording eqipment inside is basic and robust enough to survive being in a place crash. Those boxes usually look like melted hunks of tin by the time they're found.

Also it's not the same, the black box is both inside the plane and isn't used to protect anything. That window, other than serving no useful purpose, would logically be a pretty glaring (and not that hard to shoot) hole in the armor of the vehicle.

That did that with the Wave Serpent, and everyone complained it looked like a Tau turret on an Eldar Tank (and they were right).

I don't think it looks like a tau turret. The gun turret looks stupid granted, but thats more because its an asymmetrical green pod with two little bulbous guns poking out of the side for some reason.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, but it's still a little bit unreasonable considering the ordinance that is going to be shot at it. If the cockpit isn't vulnerable because of a half inch of some sort of superglass/plastic/wratihbone material, why don't they just make the tank out of it? Since its 38'000 years in the future and the eldar are millions of years older then that you would think that they could just use some really nice cameras or something, instead of requiring the driver to use an open cockpit.

If you want to push that logic, then you may as well say that the Eldar should have god-like technology which allows them to annihilate anything that stands in their way. They're millions of years old, so why not?

Part of keeping the game consistent with people's expectations is grounding it in reality. In reality there is a trade-off when designing an armored vehicle. Nominally this is a 3-way confluence of armor, armament, and mobility. The Eldar opted for a bias towards armament and mobility (which is historically in keeping with a small, elite military), so protection is a relatively small concern. Sure, there are vulnerable spots on the Falcon. But it doesn't matter if constant movement and superior battlefield awareness allows the pilot to keep them from being hit.

ShumaGorath wrote:The black box survives because the box itself is needlessly sturdy and the recording eqipment inside is basic and robust enough to survive being in a place crash. Those boxes usually look like melted hunks of tin by the time they're found.

Yes! But they are found, unlike parts of the place and the passengers who are usually found as well, but also usually found in pieces.

Honestly I agree with you, they should be inside them. The more pressing question in my mind however is why are Citizens Militia flying all their tanks. Why are their no Aspect Tankers?

BYE

dogma wrote:If you want to push that logic, then you may as well say that the Eldar should have god-like technology which allows them to annihilate anything that stands in their way. They're millions of years old, so why not?

Ah, ah, ah Dogma.

We'll have no slipperly slope no limits fallacies here thankyouverymuch.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah, ah, ah Dogma.

We'll have no slipperly slope no limits fallacies here thankyouverymuch.

BYE

Wasn't that already Shuma's argument? Essentially: The Falcon is an Eldar tank with an apparent vulnerability, which doesn't make sense because the Eldar shouldn't have vulnerabilities?

Well yes, but there's no reason to respond in kind.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well yes, but there's no reason to respond in kind.

BYE

I don't know, Reductio can be a pretty useful tool.

The simple explanation for why a Eldar tank can have a giant "glass" dome on the front is a real life explanation. The advantage of having many more clear sight lines for the pilot significantly amplifies the survivability of the craft, by giving him more opportunities to get a complete view of the battlefield. That the advantage of that increased battlefield view out weighs the gain of placing a big slab of armor. This is the rationale for most aircraft.

The Eldar vehicles are meant to move and keep moving. They get gains that increase their survivability due to that fact and those do out weigh the potential +1 armor on the front.

Also if a piece of clear plastic bugs you, paint over it. That clear plastic paints just as easily as anything else and then we don't have to spend a page and a half of a thread on the IG discussing eldar.

dogma wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah, ah, ah Dogma.

We'll have no slipperly slope no limits fallacies here thankyouverymuch.

BYE

Wasn't that already Shuma's argument? Essentially: The Falcon is an Eldar tank with an apparent vulnerability, which doesn't make sense because the Eldar shouldn't have vulnerabilities?

Actually my point was that they are one of the most advanced races in the game, as well as being psychic. They shouldn't have such a pointless vulnerability. I can understand prizing mobility and firepower over armor, but given their level of technology it simply isn't necessary to make a glass viewing dome for their vehicle cockpits. Its just bad logic, they don't need godlike technology for a few nice cameras and a nice curved sheet of armor, just some common sense.

But thanks for mischaracterizing my argument. It must make you feel strong .

Also if you want an analogy its like the venerable dreadnauts little exposed helmet. What purpose does it serve other then to be the part that flashes in the boss battle so the hero knows to shoot it?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually my point was that they are one of the most advanced races in the game, as well as being psychic. They shouldn't have such a pointless vulnerability. I can understand prizing mobility and firepower over armor, but given their level of technology it simply isn't necessary to make a glass viewing dome for their vehicle cockpits. Its just bad logic, they don't need godlike technology for a few nice cameras and a nice curved sheet of armor, just some common sense.

What happens when the cameras get shot? It doesn't solve the vulnerability issue, it just makes the tank itself a bit more complicated while constricting visibility and eliminating a back-up system; that being the pilot's eyes. It isn't a pointless vulnerability. It may not even be a vulnerability at all. Its fictional technology, there is no reason to assume the wind-screen is significantly weaker than the tank's armor.

ShumaGorath wrote:
But thanks for mischaracterizing my argument. It must make you feel strong .

The only other way to characterize your 'argument' would have been as "I don't like the wind screen." Which is a statement of preference, and not an argument at all. I gave you more credit by using Reductio.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Also if you want an analogy its like the venerable dreadnauts little exposed helmet. What purpose does it serve other then to be the part that flashes in the boss battle so the hero knows to shoot it?

What purpose does a dreadnought serve at all? Walking tanks have no purpose in warfare because they are unnecessarily complicated. Regardless, there are always vulnerabilities in any given military platform, the trick is designing the vehicle in such a way as to make those vulnerabilities negligible. The helmet on a Ven. Dread makes sense because the pilot is supposed to be more talented than a normal dread pilot. As such he doesn't need to rely an armor as much as your average super-human warrior entombed in armor.

Any new IG info? Beuller? Beuller? Beuller?

What happens when the cameras get shot?

The same thing that happens when the windscreen gets shot by an antitank weapon presumably. Except the tank doesn't fall out of the sky because its pilot is now dead.

Its fictional technology, there is no reason to assume the wind-screen is significantly weaker than the tank's armor.

I'll make that concession, there is no way to verify that the thin see-through windshield isn't as good as the plate armor covering the rest of the tank.

The helmet on a Ven. Dread makes sense because the pilot is supposed to be more talented than a normal dread pilot. As such he doesn't need to rely an armor as much as your average super-human warrior entombed in armor.

Yeah, but why can't he have the armor that doesn't encumber him at all as well as simply being more seasoned and skilled? It's not exactly easy to dodge lasers no matter how skilled you may be.

The only other way to characterize your 'argument' would have been as "I don't like the wind screen." Which is a statement of preference, and not an argument at all. I gave you more credit by using Reductio.

I don't like the wind screen because it is illogical and unnecessary. I also don't like the little ven dread helmet for the same reason. I don't like it when terminator captains don't wear helmets. The game is unrealistic, I get it. That doesn't mean I can't prefer a bit more "realism" in my space elf float tanks.

It isn't like Eldar warfare makes any sense to begin with. For a dying race they come up with awfully effective ways to speed up their own extinction.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The same thing that happens when the windscreen gets shot by an antitank weapon presumably. Except the tank doesn't fall out of the sky because its pilot is now dead.

If the tanks gets hit by an anti-tank weapon its dead anyway. The trick is to make the vehicle difficult to hit with weapons that can kill it, and tough enough to withstand impacts from the weapons it can't avoid.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, but why can't he have the armor that doesn't encumber him at all as well as simply being more seasoned and skilled? It's not exactly easy to dodge lasers no matter how skilled you may be.

It isn't a matter of dodging. Its a matter of positioning yourself in such a way that makes you a more difficult target. The more battlefield awareness you have the easier this becomes. Why can't he have both? Presumably some technical limitation.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't like the wind screen because it is illogical and unnecessary. I also don't like the little ven dread helmet for the same reason. I don't like it when terminator captains don't wear helmets. The game is unrealistic, I get it. That doesn't mean I can't prefer a bit more "realism" in my space elf float tanks.

The point is that it isn't even illogical, because your using logic which applies to real-world equipment in a setting designed to defy the logic of the real world. Its just preference that you're attempting to pass of as a logical argument. Hence the phraseology of your last sentence.

@Shuma: I have a lot of trouble imagining that a Dread (Ven or not) can dodge a Lascannon...

This thread seems to have run its natural course.

Debating the style versus realism of 40K equipment is best done in the Discussions forum.