Astra Militarum Rumors 2022-2023

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.

**Togusa**

GiToRaZor wrote:
IMHO it looks better than I expected. Still a pass for me though.

It still reminds me mostely of the Churchil, which is an excellent choice over all. Completly outdated tank concept by the british that against all odds actually worked in WW2.

What I like:
The profile is similar enough to the LRBT and the turret is close to the Baneblade, to look Imperial enough.
I actually like that the tracks are open, the pure open version is design cue to the Churchill as well, that had these many smaller wheels. Notice that the Tank comes with track guards that cover them up if you want. Still finally have a tank that might actually to drive with somewhat of a suspension.
The Oppressor gun looks good. Even if I would have preferred a more round shaped tip.
The profile from the top is nice, reminds me a bit of Star Craft Siege Tanks there.
The printle machine gunner has instant meme potential for the worst job in the regiment.
The fuel drums don't look as bad as on the Baneblade (that is the GW one, the FW one was awesome)

What I don't like:
The Name. I can already here the calls for a Corax battle jet coming in. They should have gone with a human hero at least, like Ollanius Pious.
The turret looks out of place, or as if the tank was a Baneblade that shrank in the wash.
The hull weapons, the tank suffers too much from Primaris - let us strap even more guns to the hull - syndrom.
It has even less access doors than a LRBT, that one at least permitted access via the side doors. This thing is a death trap.
They went for exausts in the back AND Chimera style on the side? Chimeras only have them there because the engine is supposed to be between the wheels (as dumb as that sounds)
The battle cannons look way too slim. Yes it's unrealistic to have a gun fire calibre 500mm shells, but that is how the LRBT looks. They look more like oversized Autocannons.
Too many stupid details, like the periscopes all over the hull.
The printle mounted Heavy Stubber, this time for real. What the gak were they thinking there? Especially since the gunners(?) hatch even has a printle mount.

But most and the deciding factor: I have a Macharius Vulcan and it looks 1000 times better than this.

The gun thing might not be as big an issue as you think. In the above picture, the second tank has lights where the first tank has melta/stubber ports. Suggesting that the number of guns you put on it is up to you, outside of the turret and the sponsons.

**JWBS**

Very nice.

**Crimson**

Can people gauge how big this is? About Land Raider sized?

**AidenFabian**

Love the elements.

**BrookM**

I quite like the design, though I will be leaving off the sponsons, hull-mounted guns and if possible, the extra exhausts on the back, but other than that, it ticks off a lot of boxes for me, so getting one for sure.

**Morskul**

The gun shield on the 'oppressor cannon' is so big that it will start covering the periscope in front of the commander's position when the gun is elevated.

The heavy stubber on the back is mounted so low that it is almost impossible for it to engage targets in front of the vehicle unless they are very very far away. In addition, a substantial part of its field of fire is blocked by the gun shield on the 'oppressor cannon' and the periscope in front of the commander. It is so low that it barely clears the commander and gunner's hatches when they are closed.

The two stubbers/meltas on the hull front look absolutely rediculous and are completely impractical.

I can see that they were trying to include design elements from real vehicles from the '30s and '40s, but they went with ones that were dropped for being impractical (the hull stubbers/meltas) or have implemented them in a way that makes them practically useless (the heavy stubber on the back of the turret).

Still, unlike the Russ it does at least have some ground clearance

**Geifer**

Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
I wanted to like it so much, but I'm struggling. It looks a bit...chibi? Maybe I'd like it more with a different colour scheme? I hope it's a grower!

Why can't they get they people who design the Forge World AM tanks to do the designs instead?

The rules will no doubt be decent or good, it's probably a good time to use my Malcador or Macharius as proxies.

If it helps, it may only look chibi because it's so tall. And it's so tall because it partially emulates a Sherman. Once you get used to it and appreciate that like the M4 they need room for a couch and a chandelier in there, it may lose that aspect.

**lurch**

Ya now that I have seen it I'm really baffled that they didn't just make a plastic macharius. Like part of me is sure I'll get used to it but the comments about it being toy like really hit home as well as that battle cannons looking like autocanons. Also real obvious that is a 40k Sherman tank.

**Kcalehc**

I like the look overall, but are those cannons supposed to be Battle cannons? They seem a bit small compared to the LRBT one, so that'll be a bit odd looking having both in an army together.

Definitely prefer without the sponsons and extra front guns though, they don't do it for me. Overall, its decent in my opinion, doesn't quite match the aesthetic of the rest of the line, but maybe that will mean a redesign of all the rest of the AM tanks as well...

**xttz**

Really curious to see this in some other colour schemes.

I don't plan to make a Guard army, but at some point in the future this could make a great looted battlewagon.

**AtoMaki**

Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
I wanted to like it so much, but I'm struggling. It looks a bit...chibi?

Nice. Now I can't unsee it. A Chibi Baneblade

!

**Undead_Love-Machine**

Geifer wrote:
Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
I wanted to like it so much, but I'm struggling. It looks a bit...chibi? Maybe I'd like it more with a different colour scheme? I hope it's a grower!

Why can't they get they people who design the Forge World AM tanks to do the designs instead?

The rules will no doubt be decent or good, it's probably a good time to use my Malcador or Macharius as proxies.

If it helps, it may only look chibi because it's so tall. And it's so tall because it partially emulates a Sherman. Once you get used to it and appreciate that like the M4 they need room for a couch and a chandelier in there, it may lose that aspect.

Yeah, there's definitely some big similarities, seeing it in that light will certainly help with the realism aspect.

There's something to be said for having enough space inside for a glamorous chandelier, the crew need some luxuries after all.

**judgedoug**

Since the Leman Russ is the fantasy interwar tank, and the Rogal Dorn is the fantasy latewar/early cold war tank... sounds like the correct technological progression.

**Daedalus81**

I like it.

I find it kind of weird that people feel the need to distance themselves from the concept of this being a "toy" when we're playing a toy soldier game.

Embrace your inner child.

**judgedoug**

Daedalus81 wrote:
I like it.

I find it kind of weird that people feel the need to distance themselves from the concept of this being a "toy" when we're playing a toy soldier game.

Embrace your inner child.

The Leman Russ is as significantly toy-like; it's like the action figure for the fantasy Mark VII tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. People are just used to it despite how comically oversized everything is

**BlackoCatto**

Removed.

**PaddyMick**

Nice to have a gun that can 'kill anything up to a chaos knight' eh? I'll be scratchbuilding mine anyway so not bothered about the model. How many points do we think? 300?

**Daedalus81**

judgedoug wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
I like it.

I find it kind of weird that people feel the need to distance themselves from the concept of this being a "toy" when we're playing a toy soldier game.

Embrace your inner child.

The Leman Russ is as significantly toy-like; it's like the action figure for the fantasy Mark VII tank from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. People are just used to it despite how comically oversized everything is

Pretty much. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

**Undead_Love-Machine**

BlackoCatto wrote:

Removed.

Please don't do that.

**Flinty**

I see shades of TOG2, KV1 and this bad boy in there:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-us-heavy-tank-m6a2e1/

I think its a bit of an odd choice, compared to bringing Malcador into plastic, or bumping up the effectiveness of the Russ on the table.

However, it is certainly a new thing that no-one currently has

Intrigued to see if its a newly developed thing for the new millennium, or if it gets inserted through the existing history.

**Matrindur**

From B&C

Seems to fit nicely between a Leman Russ and a Baneblade

**Undead_Love-Machine**

Oh wow, it's much, much bigger than I first thought...

**Pyroalchi**

A Leman Russ with rogal dorn track links and some spacers to adjust the distance between hull and sides might also look pretty cool. The Russ has such narrow tracks.

**Commitz**

There are a lot of redundant design elements that they're just slapped in because someone saw them on a historical tank but didn't think about the rest of the vehicle.

The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for? The tank has a hull gun and two sponsons, that guy on the back is going to be paste within seconds.

I know the old tanks have comically oversized weapons but I wish they'd refined things down a bit like they have with new infantry models. This just looks like a silly toy, and I'm not against stylisation, but put some more logical thought in to it.

**AtoMaki**

Commitz wrote:

The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for?

That setup was a thing back in WW2 on Shermans.

**Commitz**

AtoMaki wrote:
Commitz wrote:

The pintle of the back of the turret? What's it for?

That setup was a thing back in WW2 on Shermans.

Oh I know it was, I was asking what it's for on this tank because it doesn't work out and seems like a poor option compared to the 5 other defensive options it has.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Extra Dakka. Maybe useful against anyone climbing on the hull?

**MajorWesJanson**

That turret is actually comparable in size to the full baneblade. May be pretty easy to swap the two.

**Ignispacium**

IIRC in WW2 they were anti-aircraft MGs.

**gungo**

The image that was created of side by side still seems slightly Off as if the regal dorn is a bit to big… however I’m going to need to not use the sponsons as it looks way to big for most boards to freely move with any decent amount of terrain… the baneblade is really hard to navigate already… I don’t want to dorn to be nearly as bad.