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.

 Ishagu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Because it's an anti infantry attack walker that flanks enemies.

There are more flawed designs than this, you need to get over it or simply ignore it. There are also real military vehicles that offer no protection for their drivers in use today.

A flanking vehicle to go for combat scenarios is not a frontline vehicle?

Tell me, Is a STUG III or a STUH also not a combat vehicle because it mostly lay in ambush?

And yes a Jeep offers maybee no protection but that is mostly due to SPEED beeing the idea behind it.
Even motorized infantry started armoring their Camions. (btw how we got the IFV, and by extension this piece of gak, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowag_Duro which is hillariously tight and if uparmored has a dangerous tendency to flip over in curves.)


This vehicle is dumb even by 40k standards.

How many heavy, ranged weapons are used in close combat? The pilot is protected by power armour.

If you think something isn't realistic and thus have issues with it, you are in the wrong hobby.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't appreciate the spamming of topics with constant crying and whinging. You've made it clear you don't like it. Good for you. Everyone who feels the same can move on.

it's odd really. a new item for orks, eldar what have you come out and generally folks try to be positive but whenever space marines get a new item you have a half dozen people bound and detirmined to derail any conversation about it to scream how it sucks.

It really is an odd one. Basically unless the new stuff is exactly the same as the old stuff, there is a vocal element who are going to complain.

Nothing is mandatory. If you don't like this new walker, just "walk" on by and ignore it.

We've seen the same reactions over, and over and over again with any release that departs from the most basic design elements of Astartes. Primaris are generally a very true, modern take on Marines.

 Ishagu wrote:
It really is an odd one. Basically unless the new stuff is exactly the same as the old stuff, there is a vocal element who are going to complain.

Nothing is mandatory. If you don't like this new walker, just "walk" on by and ignore it.

We've seen the same reactions over, and over and over again with any release that departs from the most basic design elements of Astartes. Primaris are generally a very true, modern take on Marines.

between that and the "HOW DARE SPACE MARINES GET SOMETHING INSTEAD OF MY FACTION" that occurs everytime GW so much as puts out a event marine. it gets tiresome.

Some people like the exposed pilot on the new walker. That's fine, I don't. So I ordered a Redemptor sarcophagus bit so I can convert it. Seemed more productive than crying about it on forums.

 Crimson wrote:
Some people like the exposed pilot on the new walker. That's fine, I don't. So I ordered a Redemptor sarcophagus bit so I can convert it. Seemed more productive than crying about it on forums.

Lemme know how that turns out Crimson, I'm eager to see

 Crimson wrote:
Some people like the exposed pilot on the new walker. That's fine, I don't. So I ordered a Redemptor sarcophagus bit so I can convert it. Seemed more productive than crying about it on forums.

I'm debating on cutting up some blisters to make a canopy for it.

Slipspace wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
They seem to be doing a silly throw-back to the old Space marine armor is good enough a la speeders, so not having an additional armor plate would allow for reduced weight.

That doesn't make any sense because the rest of the walker is still armored. The open cockpit removes a relatively small amount of armor in exchange for a massive weak point, since even if the driver won't be killed by a hit it's definitely got a bunch of vulnerable controls systems and angles to get a shot in behind the armor plates and such. It reads much less as "light scout walker that sacrifices armor for speed" and more like a $5 toy that should have a bunch of marketing hype about how cool it is that you can open the cockpit and put your action figures inside. It's a design and everyone involved should be ashamed of it.

Are you trying to tell me that the Invictor is just as well armored as the Redemptor? I won’t argue design aesthetic, as that differs from person to person.

Where's that size comparison come from? I don't recall seeing anything like that on the Community website.

Also, I'm with Peregrine on this: why are the shoulders armoured while the pilot is exposed? By what rationale are shoulder joints more vital to its function than the pilot who controls said joints? It would make a lot more sense if the entire chassis was exposed.

I just pulled a pic from google that had both in it.

If you notice, all the areas that either house engine type things (the bulk of the torso/chest) or areas responsible for a lot of directional articulations (shoulders, knees, wrists, groin) are armored.

Again, GW is falling back on “Marine armor is good enough.” That’s why there is no protection. The power armor is good enough. They’ve been doing that for years.

The main problem I have with that argument is the presence of joysticks for the pilot. Apart from being a really dumb control system for a walker (seriously, how is he independently controlling both arms and the body-mounted weapons with a single stick and throttle?) the controls are now exposed to any random bit of shrapnel or stray bullet. It's all very well saying the pilot's armour will protect him from that sort of attack but he's not going to last very long when his mech is sitting there immobile because the exposed control systems got dinged by lucky shot from a lasgun.

Who knows, maybe in the 41 millennium, they are using more bullet resistant material and such to make the controls. We also haven’t seen a top-down view yet. The marine’s feet could be strapped in to some kind of contraption as well. Heck, there could be partial integration with warsuit akin to a Tech Priest plugging into the machine through the back. Perhaps that’s why we can’t see a Astartes power pack on his back. There are all sorts of things that could be said for this.

Are we honestly at the point of "but what if it has armored joysticks" in defense of this thing? Anything to avoid admitting that it's a $40 $50 $75 happy meal toy....

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we honestly at the point of "but what if it has armored joysticks" in defense of this thing?

Are we to the point that superhuman existing with super guy armor isn’t a stretch enough, but armored joysticks is?

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we honestly at the point of "but what if it has armored joysticks" in defense of this thing?

Are we to the point that superhuman existing with super guy armor isn’t a stretch enough, but armored joysticks is?

Yes, because at that point you might as well just put proper armor on it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we honestly at the point of "but what if it has armored joysticks" in defense of this thing?

Are we to the point that superhuman existing with super guy armor isn’t a stretch enough, but armored joysticks is?

Yes, because at that point you might as well just put proper armor on it.

If it has armored controls or controls made of resistant materials, it doesn’t need armor. You can make all the sweeping generalizations you want, but at the end of the day, it’s just crazy future-tech.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we honestly at the point of "but what if it has armored joysticks" in defense of this thing?

Are we to the point that superhuman existing with super guy armor isn’t a stretch enough, but armored joysticks is?

Yes, because at that point you might as well just put proper armor on it.

If it has armored controls or controls made of resistant materials, it doesn’t need armor. You can make all the sweeping generalizations you want, but at the end of the day, it’s just crazy future-tech.

Armoured joysticks...? This is s joke right?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If Guardsmen can have walkers so can Astartes. That's all there is to it.

The Sentinel is a light scouting unit for an expendable driver, it makes sense for it to be lightly armored.

The new totally-not-a-dread is a heavy walker with significant armor, it just has a giant "shoot me here" sign with no armor for the driver and a much less expendable marine at risk. And that's not even counting the stupidity of heavy bolter pistols held in a powerfist...

I agree. We have stepped into the realm of stupid for stupid sake here. I'm sorry, but this looks familiar....I just can't remember where....

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we honestly at the point of "but what if it has armored joysticks" in defense of this thing?

Are we to the point that superhuman existing with super guy armor isn’t a stretch enough, but armored joysticks is?

Yes, because at that point you might as well just put proper armor on it.

If it has armored controls or controls made of resistant materials, it doesn’t need armor. You can make all the sweeping generalizations you want, but at the end of the day, it’s just crazy future-tech.

Willing suspension of disbelief isn't a catch-all get out of jail free card covering any stupid or crazy idea you can come up with. I'm willing to accept a lot of things about crazy future-tech, but some things are just jarringly stupid, precisely because you can't just handwave them away. Exposed controls (or crew, for that matter) are just fundamentally stupid, and that's especially true when they very same line of models has solutions to the problem already so we know it's not some restriction of their technology. Internal consistency is very important to some people, as is some level of thought being put into your designs.

Space Marine flyers, for example, are pretty stupid from an engineering and aerodynamics point of view. But they work really well with the aesthetic for their army so they aren't a major problem for most people. They also all follow a common design scheme which makes them fit in with the rest of the SM range and the Imperium models as a whole. Obviously it's a subjective thing, but there are certain things, even in a far-future setting, that can be glaringly stupid enough for some people that it turns them off the model completely. It appears this design is one of those things.

I mostly dislike it due to GW continue to swap marine vehicles over to stubbers rather than anything they have traditionally had. One they look weird and low tech on what should be one of the more advanced IOM units and two if Cawl is really about innovation why is he slapping an inferior weapon on nearly every he can get his hands on.

Stubbers indicate better ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus, and look better on vehicles than pintle mounted storm bolters.

"Even in Death, I Serve"

People defending the new open dread and compare it to the sentinel forget what 40k is.
The dread is a tomb because the marine will not stop fighting even after he is dead. Even after you die, you serve the emperor.

All this tacticool stuff can be well, cool. But piece by piece it removes a bit of what made 40k special. Primaris risk to become very generic Sci-Fi space men.

On a more optimistic note, there is the possibility that the long (very long) term plan is to circumscribe the "space knight" aesthetics to Dark Angels only. So those that want 40k-infinity go after primaris, those that wants space knights go DA, and GW drowns in money as always.

Edit, Addendum - there is another problem. Primaris do not step only on "infinity" style-wise. Half-jokingly, many pointed out how they kinda look like stealing the aesthetics of Tau for some weapon, or going Eldar/Tau with all that A-grav. That is a greater problem in my opinion because kills what the Imperium is. I mean these guys are supposed to belong (more or less, it's sort of an union) to the same culture of the Mechanicus. It just does not add up in my opinion.

And the fist-shooting hand is not that bad but then again is kinda silly and clashes with the new tacticool style. It's overall very inconsistent, as if they could not set a specific tone for the line. Is cool, is very 40k, but in an Orky way.

The new walker is not a Dread.

 Ishagu wrote:
The new walker is not a Dread.

It walks and quacks like a duck. Let's be honest here.

 Ishagu wrote:
The new walker is not a Dread.

Not technically, but it sure borrows heavily from the style of dreads and most non-fans seeing pictures of one next to a dread would probably assume they are both the same kind of unit.

 Ishagu wrote:
Stubbers indicate better ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus, and look better on vehicles than pintle mounted storm bolters.

Yeah and the new hover rhino's main turret looks terrible and out of line with traditional marine weapons. It should have been a heavy bolter. Stubbers are a guardsmen's weapon, marines use bolters.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The new walker is not a Dread.

It walks and quacks like a duck. Let's be honest here.

A Dreadnought is a life support sarcopaghi plugged into a warmachine.

If there's no sarcophagi, going by your logic, it's not a Dreadnought.

Also it literally says this:

An Invictor Tactical Warsuit is, in essence, a Redemptor Dreadnought that has been stripped back and redesigned with lighter, sound-dampening materials for use on covert operations.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Stubbers indicate better ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus, and look better on vehicles than pintle mounted storm bolters.

Yeah and the new hover rhino's main turret looks terrible and out of line with traditional marine weapons. It should have been a heavy bolter. Stubbers are a guardsmen's weapon, marines use bolters.

The main turret is an anti-air cannon, and you can swap it for missiles if you don't like it, or a satellite dish lol

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Stubbers indicate better ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus, and look better on vehicles than pintle mounted storm bolters.

Yeah and the new hover rhino's main turret looks terrible and out of line with traditional marine weapons. It should have been a heavy bolter. Stubbers are a guardsmen's weapon, marines use bolters.

Stubbers are weapons that primarily get tied to 'archaic' stuff. It's why they are all over Mechanicus stuff.

And for "a Guardsman's weapon", it sure as hell doesn't show up anywhere except on vehicles.

Yeah the stubbers look out of place and low tech.

Its probably to tie the Primaris in more to the mechanicus, being that their armaments were produced by Cawl and the mechanicus likes heavy stubbers.

It works better on the mechanicus with their retro design elements, but it does not work on Marine vehicles. Should have just stuck with the podded style of Stormbolters on the primaris vehicles and left the stubbers off. The Impulsor stubber turret could have instead had a larger podded version of heavy bolters.

Not so annoying on the impulsor as on the other stuff though, as I'm sure the pintle is optional, and there are other loadouts for the weapon/sensor pod.

Wait, that's the anti air option? That's even more of a joke than I expected, that doesn't look like it could tag even the lightest of 40k flyers.

I just gonna say you people have seriously lost the plot....

Joysticks, tombs, bah!

It's not even a techmarine piloting the thing! That's where I draw the line!

Not actually I think it's great and unique, as opposed to a dreadnought, a venerable, and an iron clad. Looks like a stripped down redemptor made to be as light as possible, similar to the Phobos Armour itself. Seems fitting

 Kanluwen wrote:
A Dreadnought is a life support sarcopaghi plugged into a warmachine.

If there's no sarcophagi, going by your logic, it's not a Dreadnought.

Nobody cares about fluff nitpicking. If you ask someone who isn't heavily invested in the fluff "is this a dreadnought" and show them a picture of the new walker next to a primaris dreadnought the majority of them are going to say "yes, of course it is". They're going to look at the shape and overall aesthetic and not care one bit about whether or not the marine inside is dead.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^In this case Peregrene is right. It really does look like a happy meal toy.

That's a bit hyperbolic, but everyone has their own opinion, I guess.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^In this case Peregrene is right. It really does look like a happy meal toy.

That's a bit hyperbolic, but everyone has their own opinion, I guess.

It's not hyperbolic at all. The model looks like . It's utterly insane that GW is trying to sell it as an expensive wargaming miniature instead of throwing it in the trash where it belongs, and everyone involved in it should be ashamed of their work.