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.

carmachu wrote:Some of those kits are nice, but they most certainly are not $50 worth nice. Wow......when did non-LR/BW tank kits jump that high?

Since this guy i believe:

Correct. In August 2009 the current Demolisher and Hellhound kits were released at $49.50 US and that has been a fairly standard price point for new "tank" kits since then.

If you would like another alternative to the Leman Russ, please see here:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207928

It is very much still a WIP, and not yet in production. I'm hoping to be able to go to PLASTIC production with this one, and for a cheaper price than the Leman Russ (seriously, after doing my research, there is really no reason at all that the kits have to be that expensive. They could cost half of that and GW would still make a very nice profit per unit sold (not counting labor costs, etc.) Also, dont be scared off by the pics on the first page, the design has changed rather considerably.


Lunahound - any chance you can photoshop an image that is JUST the prisms on the gun? I.E., the long piece is entirely absent, just the big back prism and it goes directly into the smaller front prism (or maybe there is a very short length of barrel?)

lunarman wrote:God, I pity the poor painter that had to paint 3 vindicators in a row.

I'm not too sure what GW hopes to achieve with this expansion. Since tanks are so expensive, few people have loads and loads of them. If spearhead truly affects only vehicles or allows vehicle-only battles and that's it. I can see it being a waste of time.

I mean, great in the Heavy-metal studio where you've got buckets of tanks at no cost. But in real-life, where most gamers have 1 or 2 2500 point armies containing anything from 1-6 tanks at most; nah.

Looking at the link above of the new scenery possibility, there's $350 in tanks on the imperial side that I can see, not including the costs of 3 chimeras(and men) and 4 sentinals, thats what a bit over $200 more excluding men?

double-trouble

Talking to me Illumini? I'll post a topic on dakka as it gets closer to done. I generally don't post on Dakka all that much, I just like to lurk/browse.

Talking to me Illumini? I'll post a topic on dakka as it gets closer to done. I generally don't post on Dakka all that much, I just like to lurk/browse.

Yes. The sound of it being available in plastic sounds very promising

"But the fact that you can now make a Vanquisher, Eradicator, Exterminator and Battle Tank all out of the same kit is, in my mind, greater than revamping the look. "

I have to agree with that comment, it pretty much looks the same, don't like the turret as much now, but for a extra £5 being able to swap the barrel to make make other varients gives makes it ok.

Nah, don`t really like the design of the tank on warseer. The design goes against nearly everything that makes a good tank design.

The tank is lacking hatches for the crew to get out, cuppolas are at positons where gunners would have to be serpentine to use them and the ratio of turret to body is way off. Not to speak of the turret ring that draws enemy fire like a big huge X. Hit the ring and the tank is history.....

whatever, to each their own. The design actually makes a fair bit more sense than you realize (but I suppose thats part of the problem with it being more in my head than "on paper"), and isn't quite as vulnerable as you think, but whatever.

BrassScorpion wrote:

The fire prism must be the first Jes Goodwin model I've seen that no one likes.

That's odd, isn't it?

The new Goodwin design is much sleeker, high-tech and futuristic looking than the clunky gigantic crystal on the old design.

This may be one of those circumstances where a lot of people are having trouble with the fact that the design changed at all more than the change itself, although they're not consciously aware of it and so the new design itself becomes the focus of their displeasure.

The gigantic crystal was bigger and more "prism" than the revised design. Adding the barrel is awkward, at best. While it's fine to have a big prism and a long barrel, the particular approach here doesn't work. It'd be better if the crystal were behind and then the barrel went forward, with a mechanical whatnot between the two to bridge from the large, "light" crystal, to the slender, delicate barrel. It's a very poor design, because it's unmatched. At least with the old FP, you could see that there were dual generators and mechanicals, and the whole thing had an interesting asymmetry with the huge crystal and the secondary whatnot.

The nose-mounted turret guns just look goofy. They're large, but they're not centered. And they're on bulbous mounts which don't integrate well into the shape. Had the mounts been designed to echo the intakes on the main hull, more on the sides of the turret, this wouldn't be a problem. As it is, there's no clean linkage from the crewed turret portion to the guns. It's like they're wing-mounted or panel-mounted, but in an odd way. And then there's a total lack of balance, due to only seeing the front of the gun, rather than the whole thing on WLs, WWs, etc. This works on Imperials, because the gun barrel visually extends into the turret. But here, there's just no balancing. I just think the whole gun-turret interface is pure fail.

Now, granted, the turret, without guns is a nice sculpt. As others have noted, it'd make a nice mini-skimmer of some sort. But it doesn't really suit or match the Falcon, and the Falcon itself is becoming rather dated, being grossly undersized compared to the more modern Valkyrie / Vendetta kit. If the Falcon core hull (including engines) were extended by an inch and a half (or more), then the larger Turret would be in proportion to the hull, as we've seen with the FW "Type II" Cobra & Scorpion superheavies. The new Engines of Vaul have tremendous battlefield presence because of their very large, wide hulls. This allows for similarly large, impressive, sculpted turrets. In many ways, the new FP / NS turret could be better modified to fit on one of those than on the Falcon. I wonder if the FP / NS turret was designed to sit on a FW Falcon "type II" hull. That might look acceptable.

However, as someone with roughly 10k of Eldar, no, this doesn't match, and I won't be buying any.

@chaosomega

I can only judge from what I see and there is a reason why nearly every tank in existence goes out of its way to protect its turret ring.

The commanders cuppola e.g. is outside the ring area, how is someone supposed to "sit" in there without being on his knees when the hatch is closed?

Nearly every tank tries to keep the profile of the turret as low as possible (ok, except for KV-5 and other monstrosities that never really made into assambly line production.), your tank seems in contrast to draw all attention on the turret.

Has any one besides me noticed that the sprue pic has 2 sets of crystal cages the one with the barrel and the one without.

sonofruss wrote:Has any one besides me noticed that the sprue pic has 2 sets of crystal cages the one with the barrel and the one without.

The crystal is 6 sided, you add the two parts without the barrel to the piece with the barrel.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:@chaosomega

I can only judge from what I see and there is a reason why nearly every tank in existence goes out of its way to protect its turret ring.

The commanders cuppola e.g. is outside the ring area, how is someone supposed to "sit" in there without being on his knees when the hatch is closed?

Nearly every tank tries to keep the profile of the turret as low as possible (ok, except for KV-5 and other monstrosities that never really made into assambly line production.), your tank seems in contrast to draw all attention on the turret.

Not really the right place to argue this, but the turret ring is actually fairly well protected. The CAD model doesn't really represent it well, but the gap to to the turret ring is only about a mm in size (if that) and the area around it is faily well armored (in real world terms probably almost a foot thick). Not only that, but to even attempt to shoot at it, you (or the weapon being fired) would have to be at roughly the same height as the turret ring itself, more than a couple degrees of angle and you'll be hitting turret or hull armor instead.

The commanders cuppola is .8" (4/5") in height, model-wise, which is just shy of 5 feet in real world terms (25/28mm scale), more than enough space to sit (especially when the seat is in a reclined position, which is the way I imagined it would be, especially considering the cuppola is the equivalent of 6 ft in diameter, as well as the fact that there is ample space behind the cuppola itself for this to occur.

As for profile, its .75" in height(on average, about 4.5 ft real world), so it is actually fairly low profile, especially in comparison to the rest of the tank.

chaos0xomega

I love your design on warseer. Too me Idaho's real world criticism simply doesn't matter to me in the world of 40k. It simply looks good.

However, how long before it hits production?

If it would be real world comparison I would have even more to complain about. The problem is: It ignores basic principles for armoured vehicles that even GW respects.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:If it would be real world comparison I would have even more to complain about. The problem is: It ignores basic principles for armoured vehicles that even GW respects.

GW? Seriously? Need I remind you that the LRBT is fire controlled by a man's pelvis? Might as well call it the, Elvis Battle Tank or something. How do they even load this thing without wracking the tank commander? "Suck it in Commander, I'm trying to put a shell in the main gun!"

Duncan, my design may violate the basic principals that GW respects, but my design also respects the principals that GW violates. Either way, each design violates something, I like to think that my design violates them to a lesser degree, and even then, it doesn't really violate them if you bothered to read my previous post at all, it just takes certain liberties with the designs (that can be explained with varying levels of handwavium).

glon52, thank you for the kind words. No clue on when it hits production. I've been hitting certain mental blocks where I'm really not sure how to proceed recently, but I'm about to start my summer break (and if this break is anything like the last break I had, I'm likely to get the design to 99% completion by its end). After that, its a money game.

Depending on how much it costs, I might be able to go to limited resin production immediately. Again, depending on how I handle things, etc. I might even be able to immediately go to mold production/tooling (figure about 8 weeks for that entire process) and then plastic production. But thats going to cost about 20k USD... I dont have that much money, so I would have to see about securing a loan/see how much interest there is for the product, etc. (it seems like it would be fairly successful).

My best estimation (assuming all goes well) is a release in time for christmas.

chaos0xomega, I like the style of the tank. I'd buy more than one. If in plastic and easy to assemble.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:If it would be real world comparison I would have even more to complain about. The problem is: It ignores basic principles for armoured vehicles that even GW respects.

If a tank looks cool, it will have a place in my and many other gamers armies.

Sod basic principles for armoured vehicles, if a grimdark guardsman was able to escape with the help of 21st century tank design I would be disappointed.

agnosto wrote:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:If it would be real world comparison I would have even more to complain about. The problem is: It ignores basic principles for armoured vehicles that even GW respects.

GW? Seriously? Need I remind you that the LRBT is fire controlled by a man's pelvis? Might as well call it the, Elvis Battle Tank or something. How do they even load this thing without wracking the tank commander? "Suck it in Commander, I'm trying to put a shell in the main gun!"

Pfft, the commander simply climbs outside everytime they fire or load the cannon. It is sound engineering.

The GW russ does at least have "some" sloping armour though, but it has a very tall profile, rivets, sponsons and a silly turret


I do agree that the commander position is one bad thing about the warseer tank though. It is exposed, and he is stuck there in a sitting position.

The GW Russ has would pulp the commander when the battlecannon fired.

And that thing is full of shot traps.

If not for the magic of Imperial STCs, that thing would be a complete deathtrap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, the new Russes, with the extended, overhanging Turrets have different problems, mainly, how the Gun doesn't smash itself through the Turret floor when it recoils, presuming that there's any loading mechanism behind the pivot center.

I do agree that the commander position is one bad thing about the warseer tank though. It is exposed, and he is stuck there in a sitting position.

How else is he going to be driven closer to have at you with a power sword or las pistol?

You nancies want to see some real tanks?



Of course the Germans never got around to building these before the end of the war.

The LR is mainly quite a nice copy of the French 1-man-turret tanks where the commander always doubled as gunner and loader. Guess why they lost the war.... (with their tank commanders simply not able to do all necessaey tanks at once). The rest of the LR is more ore less taken from the british TOG 2 with some Mark IV in between.

It at least copies ideas that were tried out and in the end found lacking, Some of our design ideas on the other hand would make every engineer cringe when just thinking about them (tanks on the rear more or less are just held by an armour plate and the space between tracks and this plate cries for a gammon bomb to really disable the whole tank)

Also, your calculations abot production cost seem a little bit wonky. I do have the numbers from some companies that can do such resin modells and they are nowhere near your numbers (for a reason)

I don`t want to curb your enthusiasm, but I am tackling it from a business perspective.

If you call it 4th Reich Tank, many Alternate WWII guys will rightly claim that there is no similarity to any german designs. The Mortian is much closer to WWII tanks and the StuG variant is even a very close variant of a real StuG IV or III.

@picture
Well, no wonder two of them are not German, one is French the other US.

The Maus was actually built and can be admired in a museum near Moscow. The E100 prototype at least got partially built and tested, but no prototpye survived. And the K-Wagen was built for WWI but never really saw action.

BTW, the P1000 and P1500 don't match spec illustrations.

Nobody can cast wheels that large.

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, the P1000 and P1500 don't match spec illustrations.

Nobody can cast wheels that large.

I beg to differ:

JohnHwangDD wrote:BTW, the P1000 and P1500 don't match spec illustrations.

Nobody can cast wheels that large.

I've not seen any evidence that either design actually dates back from WW2. They could well be products of the Internet.

They didn't actually build them.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p-10001500-pzkpfw-ixx.htm