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.

I'd like to add my voice the the chorus begging for Xenos vehicles.
I love the kreig and renegade IG stuff with all my body and even my pee pee!
But seriously, Dark Eldar and Necrons are neglected enough by GW. Couldn't forgeworld spare some love?
On the ork conversion thing, as a long time ork player who hates converting and is pretty bad at it, I'd like the OPTION to buy some of my models from GW.
Just a thought. (I'm sensitive on this issue due to my long languishing with the old codex and it's frankly embarassing holes in the model range. )

On topic: Drill thing- silly. Minotaur- silly.

AlexCage wrote:You know what this thing really reminds me of? Those excessively large, mostly useless, but damned impressive looking Rail-Guns from WWI and early WWII. The big honkers that were mounted on railroads and hauled around by train. You know, Big Bertha and the Paris Gun? Those things were also horribly convoluted and poorly designed, just for the sake of more firepower on a mobile platform.

Seriously, can't you just see the Minotaur with wheels instead of tracks, mounted on a railway?

Actually, those railway guns worked quite well, all things considered. Massive bombardment capability from tremendous range. They fired, and would roll down the rail as part of the recoil absporption.

OTOH, if the Minotaur were fired at an angle less than 30 degrees from vertical, it would flip over. There just isn't enough ground bracing for it to work. In contrast, those railway guns had massive numbers of wheels in contact with the railway to spread the weight and direct recoil forces properly into the ground.

Agamemnon2 wrote:The problem of turning 180 before firing isn't supposedly a major drawback on a powered artillery vehicle that's supposed never to come within direct LOS to the enemy. It's not a proper tank, just a semi-mobile artillery piece.

Except it doesn't have sufficient ground pressure to allow any kind of pretend mobility, due to the thin tracks. Nor does it have proper ground bracing / support to actually fire.

Really, this should have been built using the Baneblade chassis. Which would have been much cheaper and easier to rationalize.

Or at least, build it with the cab up front, so the vehicle gains the advantage of using the forward cab as counterweight against dynamic recoil forces.

Nerf_IG wrote:The Brits used the Archer tank destroyer in WWII, and it was just a 17-pdr mounted over the back of a Valentine chassis. They found it useful for ambushing enemy tanks and then driving away quickly. If a tank destroyer can make a backwards gun work, a SPG should be able to as well.

Ahh... OK, thank you for sharing what FW was trying to translate into 40k. Unlike this abomination, the Archer "works" as an unorthodox design.

Savnock wrote:However, as a static-fire piece, it really needs stabilizers, even with all that mass.

Exactly. But there aren't any. So this can't work as a vehicle.

Actually, my big gripe isn't that they do one IG tank after another, but that FORGEWORLD does it. Why the hell can't GW support IG? Billions of human soldiers, and we hardly rank a plastic kit.

I'll buy some of these fine pieces when they don't all have a minimum $100 price tag.

Scottywan82 wrote:Actually, my big gripe isn't that they do one IG tank after another, but that FORGEWORLD does it. Why the hell can't GW support IG? Billions of human soldiers, and we hardly rank a plastic kit.

I'll buy some of these fine pieces when they don't all have a minimum $100 price tag.

My gripe is not so much their $$$ cost, but their points cost. Forgeworld can't seem to get out of the 1999 train of thought when it comes to pricing Imperial Guard units, hence why even most of the very cool IG units that FW makes are severely overcosted compared to other armies similar counterparts and even some of the actual codex IG units. IA:5 was a train wreck in terms of producing a general play list, and the only unit I've seen come out from them that wasn't horrifically overcosted was the Heavy Mortar, which I really think should have been 60, rather than 45pts.

just a quick note here, everyone is talking about realism of this thing (it doesent deserve a name) if orks can make something made from scrap fly im sure this thing can fire, but im still in on the "needs bracings"

Vaktathi wrote:My gripe is not so much their $$$ cost, but their points cost. Forgeworld can't seem to get out of the 1999 train of thought when it comes to pricing Imperial Guard units

Guard units? It's everything Vaktathi. FW is notorius for being very conservative when it comes to costing units, often making them underpowered and overpriced at the same time, with the odd one slipping through the cracks (Cyclops Demo Vehicles, Myotic Spores, etc.).

I think this comes from two reasons:

1. They don't want to create a series of really good units that undercuts GW's main kits.
2. Warrick is a big fan of the 'copy & paste' method of rules design. Just look at IA Apoc to see some of that in action.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Guard units? It's everything Vaktathi. FW is notorius for being very conservative when it comes to costing units, often making them underpowered and overpriced at the same time, with the odd one slipping through the cracks (Cyclops Demo Vehicles, Myotic Spores, etc.).

Well, the few Xeno's things they actually get to are usually pretty ok. Look at the Eldar Firestorm, especially when then compared with the Hydra (a Holofield, transport capable fast skimmer thats *cheaper* than an Chimera variant?).

I think this comes from two reasons:

1. They don't want to create a series of really good units that undercuts GW's main kits.

which to me is stupid, because FW's cost along puts them in an entirely different market niche within the larger niche, and then allows for GW to go and eventually make plastic kits from FW's kits, and either way FW is a subsidiary that GW retains profit from, so you'd think it wouldn't be a huge problem

2. Warrick is a big fan of the 'copy & paste' method of rules design. Just look at IA Apoc to see some of that in action.

BYE

Oh believe me, do I know. I was ready to order IA Apoc until I actually had a read through it, and realized what a piece of junk it was. While IA:5 didn't have a great all comers list, at least the two lists were relatively balanced against each other and the fluff was awesome, IA Apoc was just terrible and really didn't change anything, especially when they didn't recost the Macharius downwards after the BB came out, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the VMB macharius is as expensive as it is.

Mole Mortar's nice, The tunneler's smaler than I expected (I expected Chimera size) but still nice and the Minotaur's awful.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except it doesn't have sufficient ground pressure to allow any kind of pretend mobility, due to the thin tracks. Nor does it have proper ground bracing / support to actually fire.

Really, this should have been built using the Baneblade chassis. Which would have been much cheaper and easier to rationalize.

Or at least, build it with the cab up front, so the vehicle gains the advantage of using the forward cab as counterweight against dynamic recoil forces.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. I only model tanks, I don't have any interest in the hows and whys of their operation. From what I can gather, neither does anyone at FW.

Cool. Does it come with Roadblock and Flint?

But all kidding aside, a very nice design. It kind of fits with the Krieg. Even when retreating, they're still firing at you.

Being an ex crewman on a m110 8 inch, i would have loved something like this. realism be damned, it's big ass guns on a big ass carriage. I like it. Especially the rear facing driver, we discussed this a lot. Pulling out of a position when the front moved on you was horrible at best. Being able to scoot and shoot would be great. Talking about massive direct fire ability. Love how the barrels look like they were ripped off a battleship. All guns, full broadside!

And I think FW has stated over and over that their mission is to make imperial vehicles. Anything else just happens to fall through the cracks because it was too cool not to make. I don't think they will have any problem selling any of these.

Whilst wildly impractical having your mortars drill their way to the enemy slowly rather than just shooting them in a regular battle, having digging weapons in a siege where everyone will be living in bunkers is brilliant.

Now if only they made all this kreig stuff in plastic instead of gold pressed latinum...

Hmmm.. Hate it... Which is pretty bad considering how many FW pieces I own..

Knowing FW it probably costs more than 3 times the cost of a single Basilisk, making it redundant.

BYE

Sounds like this thing is screwing around with a lot of people's personal capabilities in the area of "suspension of disbelief". Admittedly, my own jury is still out in that regard, however I think that a lof of the "issues" raised could be overcome with modeling. Think it needs more bracing? Well kit bash it from a mobile arty piece. More weight or mass on a certain end? I'm sure oyu have an extra hull from something somewhere tha would go great on the rear end under those god dang huge barrels.

To be honest, if you are buying from FW, you had either be prepared to do a lot of repair work, or be prepared for a lot of disappointment at the casting quality, or both from everything I hear. Making the jump from "repair" to "kit-bashing" or "scratch building" is just a matter of experience and having the intestinal fortitude to make the jump. At least, that what I told myself the first time I took my dremel to an Armourcast Reaver. I have to admit, it never got easy.

I have never had any more of an issue with any of my FW stuff than plastic models I have assembled. The only real issue I have seen is some warping on barrels and such that can be hard to get "perfect". Kit bashing my own ragnarok was much harder.

Toreador wrote:I have never had any more of an issue with any of my FW stuff than plastic models I have assembled.

Then you are one of the few. They have a 50% miscast rate.

BYE

are there rules for these things

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Toreador wrote:I have never had any more of an issue with any of my FW stuff than plastic models I have assembled.

Then you are one of the few. They have a 50% miscast rate.

BYE

That might be a slight exaggeration. I too, have never had any problem with them. I have bought several vehicles, creatures and a titan from them, all without issue. Only problem that I have had was my hellblade was slightly bent, fixed with 2 minutes and some hot water. Surely that cant qualify as a miscast?

smart_alex wrote:are there rules for these things

For that you'll have to wait for IA5 Vol. 2, sometime in the future.

Nah, that's not miscast, that's heat stress. Direct sunlight will do that to resin, as will indirect (I discovered to my chagrin). From what I understand though, there is a huge amount of filling due to airpocketing that has to be done to some models, and plenty of "wrong items". This is just poor quality work, in the pours and the picks.

I had an old original waveserpent where the rear compartment piece was kind of warped, but running it under hot water I was able to bend it back. I also order a DK tank commander and the stubber barrel was bent, also fixed with hot water. Other than that everything I ever ordered from FW has been just fine. I've never ordered any real big models though, mostly doors and other small things

RE: The Plastic Treads. I've figured this one out, the Malcador was always supposed to be a 'history' lesson of sorts, showing us the early form of the Leman Russ. Well I'm pretty sure some goofball decided that they should have the same tracks, just so you could tie them together easier. He saw this as a great idea because they could just use plastic treads already available instead of sculpting the stupid things. Which also meant less work for him. I mean they COULD have done it, the main drive wheel of the Malcador has moulded treads on it, it's not hard. But it does give the Malcador a unique, yet familiar feel to it, even though the damn thing is way too long for such skinny tracks. All variants will just suffer from the same issues.

Looking at the opening around the crew compartment really reminds me of the Macharius, and I think this would have honestly been a much better piece if they based it on the Macharius hull. Maybe that's too big for the nice, crowded, "Shove 2 giant howitzers on a tank, the crew be damned!" look they were going for, but it's got the proper weight distribution, ample wide tracks, and would be perfect for some stabilizer love. And it provides an excellent excuse to buy yet another Macharius. Mmmm.

Personally I'm probably going to do something about the back of the tank. Likely just take that plate off altogether in favor of an elongated engine compartment that the guns can rest on. I can't stand those curves.

And yes, it's over priced and over costed on points I'm SURE. A Basilisk battery is probably a smarter choice in every situation. But by God, the Rule of Cool trumps all, and I've been waiting for super-heavy artillery forever. Long live the Minotaur!


Also the Hades is just friggin awesome, I can't say that enough. It looks like an Engineer (Enginseer in this case I suppose) sat staring at a Centaur, wondering just how much drilling equipment he could shove onto it and still have it move. Apparently, alot. Of course one must consider that the centaur is pretty much just tracks and a driver's seat to begin with.

I just can't get the image out of my head of this thing drilling under the front lines and right into an underground barracks of renegades, and suddenly the drill is choked with bones and viscera instead of rocks and dirt. Eww.

I like it except for the curvy flowing lines, and the gun pivot on the sides looks like it's mutating into a chaos star - which will at least make for an easy Traitor paint job!

The Minotaur looks very Flash Gordon to me for some reason. I can't place why.

The Minotaur just doesn't seem very practical to me. Yeah, ok, I know, debating practicality in 40K ain't the wiesest idea, but I do have to wonder why this tank even exists?

What advantage does it hold over other artillery platforms? Even from a logistical standpoint (carrying all the ammo for two guns) just doesn't work.

I think this boils down to a case of FW wanting to make something 'cool' without really thinking about it.

BYE

The Minotaur reminds me of the Archer tank destroyer.

The Hades assault drill and Mole Mortar look nice and tempting, but with FW's current quality of their products I'm not sure whether to get them or not. I don't want to be over again for 250 quid and no way of getting a replacement part.

H.B.M.C. wrote:What advantage does it hold over other artillery platforms? Even from a logistical standpoint (carrying all the ammo for two guns) just doesn't work.

Yeah, this is my question, too. Just how many variants of the Earthshaker cannon do we need? </sarcasm on> Ooh. Wait. This one's probably twin-linked! </sarcasm off> I mean, at least it's more useful than the multitude of mortar carrier variants.

H.B.M.C. wrote:The Minotaur just doesn't seem very practical to me. Yeah, ok, I know, debating practicality in 40K ain't the wiesest idea, but I do have to wonder why this tank even exists?

What advantage does it hold over other artillery platforms? Even from a logistical standpoint (carrying all the ammo for two guns) just doesn't work.

I think this boils down to a case of FW wanting to make something 'cool' without really thinking about it.

BYE

It makes about as much sense as a dreadnaut (short worthless legs, can not fit indoors, clearly useless close combat arm). Or a series of tanks with non explosive ordinance for main guns (land raider, predator etc). Or about as much sense as strapping on a jet-pack and rushing towards an enemy line clearly visible in the air. Or about as much sense as really any titan from any race (slow bipedal movement, massive visible profile, easily hindered by shifts in the density of the ground, and easily targeted by aircraft).

Come on now. Half the crap in 40k doesn't actually work in a practical sense. It's still awesome.

I sort of agree with HBMC. I don't really see what the point is. I dont really even think that its all that cool.

Thing is that with loads of stabilising gear on it not only would it look more 'realistic' but it would look cooler.