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.

Scottywan82 wrote:Is the article not showing up for anyone else?

Not showing up for me either : (

As was said on the last page, it was taken down. GW thinks that by taking something off the official site it is therefore gone from the internet. It's also just a fad as well, apparently.

yeah, posting on the internet is like peeing in a pool. you can "clean it" but you'll never actually get it out... except for tub girl... i can't seem to find her anymore.

Well would someone please post the images in this thread?

Dang. The link doesn't seem to load properly for me.

Neconilis wrote:Well would someone please post the images in this thread?

The pic is already in this thread numerous times.

djphrang wrote:Dang. The link doesn't seem to load properly for me.

If you were to read the whole thread it's already been mentioned twice that GW has taken down the page.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

A lot of people, myself included, like the look of the Russ. Some people don't mind that it is an unrealistc take on a WWI tank and, in fact, think that that adds to the tanks charm.

Do the tracks make sense? No.
Does the turret make sense? Not really.
Is the tank's design impractical if not dangerous? Yeah, it's pretty bad.

Do we care? No.

People liked the old land raider too.



Those people are wrong and should feel bad.

Ghaz wrote:

djphrang wrote:Dang. The link doesn't seem to load properly for me.

If you were to read the whole thread it's already been mentioned twice that GW has taken down the page.

Lol my bad... I must have missed that when buzzing through

Well, it's the best GW demolisher we've gotten so far, and coming with all the weapon options is definitely a boon. I appreciate that they've at least done some work on the hull parts (for example the front weapon mount looks like a simpler construction). Also, the sponson heavy bolters look good.

Too bad about the hull flamer, I don't mind the old style nozzles that much, but it just sticks out too far.

Looks like the tracks are the same though. I was working on some chimeras this weekend and praying it would be the last time I ever saw the track and wheel sprue (copyright 1995!).

But no.

I wager someday my sons will bitch and moan about IG tracks just like I do.

The wheel sprue is a colossal waste of plastic, yes. Alas, GW designers have the misfortune of being idiots.

your starting to get a little trivial now. as has been said before, this is probably the prototype or even a rough mockup of the parts. if the kit came like this then it wouldnt sell. at least GW are taking it upon themselves to tease players by actually letting them see stuff than let everybody get agrivated on the rumor mills.
Not that this model is terribly shocking and unexpected
ah well can't stop people poking at details on the internet, until GW plant reps in everybodys bedroom to watch what they say... holding an injection of neuro-toxin just behind us....

I can see why the gun mantle is split like that, most likely so they can slide the other two main guns in there, but the rest of the hull shows these gaps and that's just unacceptable, especially for a showcase model. The Shadowsword had the same problem, but that was mostly due to it being a modular display model.

ShumaGorath wrote:People liked the old land raider too.
Those people are wrong and should feel bad.

ShumaGorath wrote:[Implying that opinions can be wrong]

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Looks like the tracks are the same though. I was working on some chimeras this weekend and praying it would be the last time I ever saw the track and wheel sprue (copyright 1995!).

But no.

I wager someday my sons will bitch and moan about IG tracks just like I do.

I don't see anything that would prevent the wheels from being built into the side panels. I too hope that the damned wheel sprue has been removed.

BrookM wrote:I can see why the gun mantle is split like that, most likely so they can slide the other two main guns in there, but the rest of the hull shows these gaps and that's just unacceptable, especially for a showcase model. The Shadowsword had the same problem, but that was mostly due to it being a modular display model.

The Baneblade did have some problems as well, IIRC the rear track sections were crooked.

Do you think someone is at GW assmbling and painting the new model properly, ready to be put online in a couple of days?

I think this is just the master cast that the guy on the factory floor assembled to see if everything fits together perfectly. The Studio then pilfered it and painted it up quick-quick because their overseers needed to show the sheeple that they still cared about the Imperial manthings.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

Its a sad day when Shumagorath and I are in complete agreement.
They should have taken the opportunity to make all the existing Leman players want new ones. They should have banebladized the core of the Leman. You didn't have to make it a modern battle tank, but come on! the new superheavies look excellent. The flattened Lemans in Epic actually look decent. The new aircraft look inspired. This was you chance. You should have taken it.

1: Good call on saving the pic in your photobucket so GW cant remove it


2: it can be made better, just means chopping around 15-20% of its height (ok, thats a fair bit of work)
losing the turret and replacing it with the turret from a pred (keeping the dem cannon though)

just those changes should make it look alot better, i may have to pick one up and tinker with some ideas.

ShumaGorath wrote:I didn't even notice the problems with the display model. I was too busy puking over the horrible quality of the model itself. It's a ridiculous tonka tank stolen from the crack dreams of a child in the 1920's who wondered what would happen if he combined a tank and a cupcake.

They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

Are you unhappy with the styling or the kit quality?

As far as styling, from this and other comments you may be best looking at another game or at least another army. Imperial stuff is weirdly anachronistic deigns that pretty much only make sense with a liberal dose of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

All the Imperial tanks are far too tall by modern standards, and rivets are generally considered 'bad' by modern design theories... But this might not matter if you add 38,000 years to things.

If it's kit quality, complain away. Not that I expect anyone to stop based off anything I say anyway.

Y'know... looking at the strange hull, I'm almost convinced the guy building it put the bottom hull plate on backwards.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Y'know... looking at the strange hull, I'm almost convinced the guy building it put the bottom hull plate on backwards.

It's possible, though we only have this one angle, we really can't say for certain.

They are probably ironing out the silly design quirks that Tony put in last millennium, one part at the time.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Y'know... looking at the strange hull, I'm almost convinced the guy building it put the bottom hull plate on backwards.

But if it isnt , then it still shows GW have stupid concept designers. ( you are talking about the whole section between the *17 plate , and the back armor / stowage part right? )

Somewhat disappointing - they could have done a whole lot more with the redesign. On the plus side though it looks so similar to the existing Russ that I can use all my old tanks without them looking bad next to the new stuff (unlike when they updated the Rhino). Bizarrely for once my wallet thanks GW!

I quite like the longer turret but is it me or does that demo cannon look rather, er, under-endowed now?

ShumaGorath wrote:They wasted the only chance they were going to have to revamp one of the worst model lines in the game (Leman russ) for another decade.

QFT.

The recent Baneblade and Shadowsword show very clearly that GW can make a good-looking "Gothic" tank that follows 40k Imperial themes. Hell, even the updated Land Raider shows this. But instead, GW soldiers on with their crappiest tank. If GW was going to do a totally half-assed job, why even bother? It's not like the current Demolisher is so bad to keep in production for another few months if that's what it'd take to do the damn thing properly.
____

Meltdown wrote:your starting to get a little trivial now. as has been said before, this is probably the prototype or even a rough mockup of the parts. if the kit came like this then it wouldnt sell.

The original Land Speeder had a horrible time with the front gap fit. And the Land Raider was notorious for how badly the upper hull gapped. And those were both production models.

So, while the build quality is poor, that doesn't mean the production model will be better.
____

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Do you think someone is at GW assmbling and painting the new model properly, ready to be put online in a couple of days?

After being held to task for doing a crappy job of assembling, someone who actually knows how to build a plastic tank model *should* be assembling and then painting the model correctly.

Whether GW actually cares enough to do a non-half-assed job, or whether it goes online this month or next doesn't really matter.
____

Balance wrote:As far as styling, from this and other comments you may be best looking at another game or at least another army.

As above, look at the Baneblade. That tank is cool. Why couldn't any of that have rubbed off in making a Land Raider mk.2?
____

OldPeculiar wrote: it looks so similar to the existing Russ that I can use all my old tanks

It looks practically identical, to the point that GW might as well not have bothered.

i don't mind the current overall look of the IG tanks. if they did a redo, i'd prefer if they just added details instead of changing the overall lines because i don't want my army that i spent hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours to standardize to look hodgepodge. although the basis of their tech is the same, i like the visual tech level difference between the IG and marines. marines have tanks with slopping armor, covered exhaust, remote operated turrets, a modern military design look. the IG instead have a mix of WW1 and WW2 aesthetics with blocky armor, crewed sponsons, and hull mounted guns. this "same but different" motif continues to other army choices. IG (at least the metal cadians) special weapons require a backpack and look bulkier; the marines just plug their weapon into their armor. marines carry their heavy weapons (including ammo/powerpacks) on their person; IG require a two man team and a tripod. the only thing i don't like is the rebasing i'll have to do to make my heavy weapons teams tourny legal... grumble, grumble...

I think the new demolisher looks fine. I did like the look of the metal one better though

I'm going to wait and see how the Punisher cannon and plasma blast cannon look on that turret before throwing a complete bitch fit.