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.
Love the size of the weapon on that tank! The trailer doesnt seem pragmatic in terms of wargaming though
4250 points of Blood Angels goodness, sweet and silky W12-L6-D4
1000 points of Teil-Shan (my own scheme) Eldar Craftworld in progress 800 points of unassembled Urban themed Imperial Guard 650 points of my do-it-yourself Tempest Guard 675 points of Commoraghs finest!
The Dude - "Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man."
I'm sure the trailer has a special rule that makes it extra vulnerable for the sake of fluffy things. Ooh, maybe they'll give it the old Hellhound rules, where all glancing hits auto-pen!
endtransmission wrote:As a model, it's just jumped to just under the vulkan megabolter Macharius on my "to buy" list as it'll be nice against Arakasi's Orks
Hey!
nosferatu1001 wrote:endtransmission - you need 2, trust me
Do I sense a conspiracy?
Wayfarer wrote:Please tell me I'm not alone in my immediate thought of Skorcha!" I mean, come on. It looks pretty ork inspired you have to admit.
Man, I wish there was a real Black Library where I could get a Black Library Card and take out Black Library Books without having to buy them. Of course, late fees would be your soul. But it would be worth it. - InquisitorMack
H.B.M.C. wrote:I think we'll get rules in IA11, and no test rules before then. It really doesn't matter though guys - the Malcador is a piece of junk, and every tank based on its profile is a piece of junk as well. This will not be a good tank, it will be like all the other FW superheavies - cool to look at, not worth a damn in-game. I mean really... just look at the Macharius. All those points for an extra Battlecannon? Two Russes will be better than it.
I'm waiting with great interest to see how FW will feth this one up. I suspect it will cost about 600 points, have some kind of "runs out of fuel" special rule and another one to reflect its extreme vulnerability to antitank fire (as if the Malcador chassis wasn't fragile enough)
Maybe we should convert it into an Armoured tea carrier, swap out the front flamer nozzle of a little tap, maybe 2 actually (one for milk).
All units nearby get 'Fearless' and 'gets hot' (to simulate spillage in a combat environment)?
My combined Macragge PDF Imperial Guard and Ultramarine 3rd Co. Blog Clicky
Death By Monkeys wrote:Here's my beef: it looks like someone at FW just took a 3-upped flamer and said, hey, let's put this on a Valdor chassis. Aside from the weapon needing to be recognizable as a flamer, what purpose does having the gun look like that have? Do the pilot lights for it need to be as big as a normal SM flamer? That seems pretty ridiculous to me. I mean, not to delve too deeply into the "realism" aspect, but real life flame tanks just have the flames come out the end of a barrel - they look pretty much like any other tank. This just looks like one of the FW designer was given the task of coming up with a medium heavy flame tank and he sat around checking FB and reading wikipedia entries until a week before the project was due. Then in the last week, he said, "AH HA! I'll take a 3-up flamer and mount it on a Valdor. Done!"
The thing is, with the design aesthetic that GW use, if it's supposed to be some sort of giant flamer, it should look like a giant flamer. Whether or not it makes sense in the real world, we learn to recognise the weapons in the game from those little design keys. The 'pilot lights' hanging off the front are what differentiates a flamer from a melta weapon. The angled flash-suppressor-esque piece on the tip of las-weapons is how we tell them apart from auto-weapons. And so on.
HiveFleet wrote:I wonder what makes it more powerful than a regular flamer? The fuel? I wouldve thought flame by another other source is still flame in the end.
Different chemicals burn at different temperatures. And in GW-land, 'bigger' automatically means 'more powerful'... well, except for when it doesn't, like with tank-mounted autocannons being twice the size of infantry versions, but doing exactly the same thing.
Well both of those were Dreadnought specific, and fluffed as technological advancements of Dreadnought-mounted weapons rather than them just being 'bigger' weapons.
Given the relative fragility of Dreadnoughts, and the lack of any difference (other than move and fire, I suppose), it isn't a wonder I don't field them much anymore - though I'd like to, as they are one of the cooler elements of a Space Marine force.
I'm terribly disappointed by this. I think the tank itself is fine (frankly, over-proportioned weapons are sorta how 40krolls) but I hate the trailer. I hate how it looks (which is, stupid), and I hate that it exists. Absolutely no reason this thing couldn't have tanks mounted on the rear like a baneblade, rather then dangling junk-like from the rear.
That's what it reminds me of - those plastic scrotums you can buy for trucks that many states outlawed a few years ago. rightly so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/19 05:26:01
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I do miss the days of vehicle mounted weapons doing 'more' than their infantry held counterparts.
Missile launchers shooting more than one missile, the multi-melta being able to fire as a heavy flamer... ah, the good ol' days!
It continuously bugs me that the autocanon on a predator is the same as a guard infantry autocanon despite having three times the barrel width and twice the length.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Yeah it probably was, but look at the churchhills trailer size compaired to the barrel and then look at the malcador's barrel size/trailer length. The malcadors only looks like it could hold 1 shot
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The concept of the trailer is based on this maybe?
Yes, but they screwed it up. The crocodile's add-on fuel tank was about half the volume of the entire vehicle towing it. With that vehicle there was an actual reason for giving it a trailer (because it was too big to fit in the tank), not just because they were aping another, better, vehicle.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The concept of the trailer is based on this maybe?
Yes, but they screwed it up. The crocodile's add-on fuel tank was about half the volume of the entire vehicle towing it. With that vehicle there was an actual reason for giving it a trailer (because it was too big to fit in the tank), not just because they were aping another, better, vehicle.
The Crocodile's add-on fuel tank was also designed to last it for an entire campaign, and fueled an infantry sized weapon that, at best, would kill or suppress a few men in a bunker.
Oh, also?
The add-on fuel tank was partly a psychological comfort for the crews of the Crocodiles because of how easy it was for German weaponry to knock out Shermans. The things were already called "Tommy Cookers" and "Ronsons" for a reason, nobody in their right mind would have gotten into a flamethrower tank that was well-known for cooking the crew alive.
This is an ad hoc weapon likely built in the field, and then deployed in a dire situation. That's how the Thunderer came about after all.
Khorne Flakes wrote:But it still does look like a water purification vehicle of some sort rofl
No it doesn't. A water purification vehicle would be dumb to use such a small tank and have any form of weapon on it.
There used to be a trailer that had this on it, to be attached to an Atlas Transporter:
.
That is the size of a water tank you'd see for even a small scale campaign, and it wouldn't be on the frontlines unless an enemy specifically was attacking the area it was behind the lines at.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/19 17:13:37
FM Ninja 048 wrote:Yeah it probably was, but look at the churchhills trailer size compaired to the barrel and then look at the malcador's barrel size/trailer length. The malcadors only looks like it could hold 1 shot
in the far future, they are able to compress fuel into a smaller jug.
plus look at the fuel tank on the back of the titans gun. it seems about the right size
kenshin620 wrote:Look its 40k, its suppose to look silly and out of scale
That's a stupid argument. Even if 40k is supposed to look out of scale, it's supposed to look out of scale in a certain way. The undersized trailer is the wrong kind of out of scale.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Oh, also?
The add-on fuel tank was partly a psychological comfort for the crews of the Crocodiles because of how easy it was for German weaponry to knock out Shermans. The things were already called "Tommy Cookers" and "Ronsons" for a reason, nobody in their right mind would have gotten into a flamethrower tank that was well-known for cooking the crew alive.
The add on fuel tank was behind it because it would be prohibitively expensive to attempt a massive retrofit of an existing vehicle frame to allow for mass liquid storage inside of the vehicle. It would end up being an entirely different vehicle, it was towed behind specifically because it wasn't an entirely different vehicle. It had too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote:
kenshin620 wrote:Look its 40k, its suppose to look silly and out of scale
That's a stupid argument. Even if 40k is supposed to look out of scale, it's supposed to look out of scale in a certain way. The undersized trailer is the wrong kind of out of scale.
It wouldn't be so bad if the flamer wasn't three times the size it should be as an oversized 40k gun. It's ludicrously big. It's dumb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/19 20:09:32
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Try CLASSIC TOY SOLDIERS.COM, who do a nice 1/32 Churchill Crocodile for a mere $12.95. Against FW prices, you could field about 4 squadrons at that price.
No pic, as for some reason it won't upload :(
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/19 21:33:50
4250 points of Blood Angels goodness, sweet and silky 
1000 points of Teil-Shan (my own scheme) Eldar Craftworld in progress 
800 points of unassembled Urban themed Imperial Guard 
650 points of my do-it-yourself Tempest Guard 
675 points of Commoraghs finest! 
Da Dark Angelz
Arakasi vs Infinity
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.