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.

Orlanth wrote:The bassic hull shape is in fact in several ways a good design rather than a bad. You might not know this but the Mk1 still holds the record for verticle traverse and horizontal traverse for any ground based AFV. That is to say it can cover a gap wider and climb a wall higher (as opposed to going through it) than any other AFV, this includes designs like Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc. Given a sufficiently wide trench or high trench wall the Mk1 can cross but the modern tank cannot.

If only the Leman Russ and the MkI were the same shape, but they aren't, yes they're both roughly lozenge shaped but the MkI is long and low (giving it the capabilities you describe) whereas the Russ is short and high also the MkI doesn’t have bits of armour that hang over the sides of the track.

aka_mythos wrote:I don't know how you can make these complaints on geometry. All things in 40k are caricatures and are not meant to be realistic. That is the ultimate failing of your arguement. You assume that GW is attempting to make something realistic. Even the basic IG have the wrong proportions to be realistic so why would their vehicle be any different? Marines suffer from being wider than they should be and eldar have barbie doll waists. There are plenty of things that are not realistic. Are the Leman Russ' battleship sized guns oversized? Probably so, but why does it really matter, when you are playing the wargame equivalent to a cartoon.

Just so we're on the same page, do you accept any cosmetic complaints at all? Because if what you're saying is how you truly feel, with no double standard, then literally anything goes when it comes to GW sculpting. Human figures' proportions being wrong are nowhere near the level of basic physical wrongness of the Leman Russ. It's a difference of an entire order of magnitude.

As for your cartoon comparison, I'd much rather the overall visual quality of the game was closer to Ghost in the Shell than Looney Tunes.

Agamemnon2:

Yup. It's acknowledged that Warhammer 40,000 is a cartoon. By 'realism' we're commenting on what I suppose is an analog to the quality of the art and animation. Take the spider-tank in Ghost in the Shell. It's not a realistic design in terms of being a blueprint for building a working model, but it is realistic from the standpoint of its design and execution in the film making it easier to suspend disbelief about whether an arachnoid tank is a good idea.

I think that's one reason why the mechanical designs in anime tend to be considered more realistic than the sorts of things that GW produces, not because they are any more feasible from a production perspective, but because the artists paid attention to the little details that make swallowing the ludicrousness of a giant robot fighting machine much easier.

You can see this in scratch-builds, actually. There's Blackadder's thread about his superb Warhound scratch-build. In that thread he also features a beautiful scratch-built Warlord. Both look very realistic because attention is given to all the little details, like rivets, ladders, exhausts, etc, that real machines have.

Nurglitch wrote:Agamemnon2:

Yup. It's acknowledged that Warhammer 40,000 is a cartoon. By 'realism' we're commenting on what I suppose is an analog to the quality of the art and animation. Take the spider-tank in Ghost in the Shell. It's not a realistic design in terms of being a blueprint for building a working model, but it is realistic from the standpoint of its design and execution in the film making it easier to suspend disbelief about whether an arachnoid tank is a good idea.

Yep i agree.

And some people are deliberately mixing the 2 different types of realism together for the sake of their argument.

Hmm, I wonder when the Tau will invent their own Tachikoma.. :3

Agamemnon2 wrote:Just so we're on the same page, do you accept any cosmetic complaints at all? Because if what you're saying is how you truly feel, with no double standard, then literally anything goes when it comes to GW sculpting. Human figures' proportions being wrong are nowhere near the level of basic physical wrongness of the Leman Russ. It's a difference of an entire order of magnitude.

As for your cartoon comparison, I'd much rather the overall visual quality of the game was closer to Ghost in the Shell than Looney Tunes.

To a degree I would to. I agree there are aesthetics that are poorly executed. I'm not saying GW can get away with anything, but they are consistent about how they characterize. My extensive converting is proof to the fact that I don't agree with GW's aesthetic. That doesn't mean I believe 40k should become something it isn't because thats what happens when you do move the out of the box kits in the direction of extremely serious realism. While you want something more adult, 40k isn't that. 40k is a caricature and not meant to be so realistic, I said that before. This game, by GW design is made and targeted at 13 year old, and only needs to make as much sense at that demographic needs it to. Wanting the likes of Ghost in the Shell is not realistic, it is most definitely not designed for 13 year olds. You don't go to a Disney movie expecting a sex scene. You don't go to GW for realism. 40k has moved away from a more comedic style, most people would say this has a bit to do with GW's games losing their character and uniqueness. Any game can be realistic, it takes more to make or play something that relies more on fantasy and imagination.

I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

BrookM wrote:Hmm, I wonder when the Tau will invent their own Tachikoma.. :3

add some legs on the Pirranas :3

We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

LunaHound wrote:

BrookM wrote:Hmm, I wonder when the Tau will invent their own Tachikoma.. :3

add some legs on the Pirranas :3

Dunno, the Piranha has a nice enough shape to it already, Tachi's are very boxy. Come to think of it, they've got wheels in their feet and the Tau have denounced the wheel as backwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

infilTRAITOR wrote:I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

Always assume the worst. Right. The main reason why there are less parts and easier construction is so that the box takes up less shelf space.

And if anything, the Baneblade, Stompa and Valkyrie are a good indication that GW isn't going completely kiddie on you.

True that. The Valk was a right bastard to put together. Some of the parts dont exist!!!

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:True that. The Valk was a right bastard to put together. Some of the parts dont exist!!!

I've had no trouble putting my fifty together. The Stompa on the other hand, the manual is an outright bitch sometimes and the online guide isn't helping squat due to the parts being wrongly numbered.

I want pics.

Particularly with regard to how the OP stated it would be easier to magnetize the sponsons and other weaponry.

The Russ looks fine, now the Chimera on the other hand...

Cheese Elemental wrote:We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

You know , even though "anime fan gak" isnt grim dark omg goth for 40k , it still provides excellent concept
for how things are designed.

Keep an open mind , good ideas should be shared among all.

LunaHound wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:We don't need more anime fan gak in 40K.

You know , even though "anime fan gak" isnt grim dark omg goth for 40k , it still provides excellent concept
for how things are designed.

Keep an open mind , good ideas should be shared among all.

The Tau look so clean and neat and awesome when they shout their special attacks ("Cyclon Ion Blaster GO!") at those pesky evil Space Marines, but their background is just as dark as the others, with their internment camps, systematic eugenics and whatnots.

Anyway, I doubt that the Chimera will be radically redesigned. The new codex art of it showed the same old lovable tracked tub I hold so near and dear. Well, held near and dear until miss Valkyrie took me for a flight.

I think the Chimera turret looks stupid

True, turret is on the small side but that has never stopped the conversion crew from changing it. I like mine the way they are, big clunky floaty tanks with wee turrets on top that don't seem to be overcompensating one bit.

BrookM wrote:True, turret is on the small side but that has never stopped the conversion crew from changing it. I like mine the way they are, big clunky floaty tanks with wee turrets on top that don't seem to be overcompensating one bit.

So when is the new Russ Kit going to be out?

I bought my first Russ about 2 weeks ago and It was still the old kit (obviously.)

What confused me about the kit is the fact that it even had road wheels [they're completely covered by the tracks so you don't know they're there) and the fact that over half the tracks are covered [and you can't see that half at all.]

There's a place called www.games-workshop.com that has all the release dates on it. O-M-G.

Anyway, Demolisher and Hellhound are inbound for the 1st of August or the first Saturday of the month.

infilTRAITOR wrote:I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

I completely agree. We deffinitely are moving in the direction of toys you have to assemble and away from model kits. The lack of actual wheels to go with the tracks is another such limiting attribute to the new kit. Every conversion based on doubling up wheels or rearranging the wheels and tracks are now right out the window.

For your splurge, you could try to find the armored company box. That should give you enough old Russes.

Lagduf wrote:I want pics.

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

George Spiggott wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The bassic hull shape is in fact in several ways a good design rather than a bad. You might not know this but the Mk1 still holds the record for verticle traverse and horizontal traverse for any ground based AFV. That is to say it can cover a gap wider and climb a wall higher (as opposed to going through it) than any other AFV, this includes designs like Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc. Given a sufficiently wide trench or high trench wall the Mk1 can cross but the modern tank cannot.

If only the Leman Russ and the MkI were the same shape, but they aren't, yes they're both roughly lozenge shaped but the MkI is long and low (giving it the capabilities you describe) whereas the Russ is short and high also the MkI doesn’t have bits of armour that hang over the sides of the track.

Partly true. The tanks are different but share some characteristics. The Malcador is closer to the Mk1 as it is much longer and its likely to share a similar performance profile. The Russ being quite short would not have a particularly good horizontal traverse but the verticle traverse should still be way above average.

The armour skirting is not that big an issue either, the track still stands proud especially on the front where it counts for verticle traverse. Like i said this is not a Mk1 but it sghares some characteristics. What we can say is that a conventional track arrangement and a sinilar size hull will have a lower verticle traverse thus justifying the design from one point of view.

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

No wheels at all but the tracks look as finicky as ever to put together. Er guys...

Frazzled wrote:

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

No wheels at all but the tracks look as finicky as ever to put together. Er guys...

Looks the same as the current Landraider? Just sandwich the 2 sides, then put the tracks around them in specific slots?

Note the number of treads. It was aleays difficult to get them to meet properly. Now if they have changed the treads and the treads match up preoperly then you're right.

However, as noted, no wheels equals no conversions.

No wheels. The way they seem to make the track fit to the tank is that they've put indentions for all the teeth of the tracks into the side walls. As opposed to the Land Raider or Rhino, where the tracks rest on protrusions. I think this will lead to problems for anyone who purchases the kit a few months from when kits have been sitting in warm warehouses and have warped or undergone any degree of shrinking. At that point you'll be lucky if those teeth match up.

As an aside, GW partner stores in the US have been offered a "black box" of the new Demolisher this week. It's essentially a Demolisher kit without instructions or fancy packaging. I'm planning to put mine together this weekend, along with a couple standard Leman Russ's and a small fortune in Forge World bits. This will be my first shot at the Russ. Pictures to follow.

I personally like the Chimera, enough to buy 10 of them. I don't care for the mutli-laser turret, but I can live with it, possibly because I have no real-world version to compare it to. I just bought three beautiful Chimera autocannon turrets from Forge World and I'm trying to think of a way to convince other players to allow me to use them. There's something about daemonhunter errata with autocannons in it somewhere....

Turret for the chimera is actually realistic for a automatic cannon. I like it.

aka_mythos wrote:

infilTRAITOR wrote:I had a chat with some GW fairies yesterday about the new kit and I'm a little worried about it. Granted the snap on track is a good idea but it does put limitations on conversions. I was told that the copula is fused with the turret out of the box.

So now I'm thinking "Sure, it's a nice looking tank but it's starting to sound like an Airfix snap-kit for five year olds." The kits are basic enough as it is and I'm worried that this might be the way the company is going with it's models :(

And I was informed that they will be redoing the standard Leman Russ to a similar format. I think I'm gonna have to go on a splurge and buy every basic Leman Russ kit I can find.

I completely agree. We deffinitely are moving in the direction of toys you have to assemble and away from model kits. The lack of actual wheels to go with the tracks is another such limiting attribute to the new kit. Every conversion based on doubling up wheels or rearranging the wheels and tracks are now right out the window.

Yeah, the Stegadon, Valkyrie, Drop Pod, Ork Trukk, Shadowsword and Stompa kits are all indicative of this new over-simplified direction! What a ridiculous whinge.

I thought the standard response to this kind of "failure" on GW's behalf was "I'll build my own out of plasticard" anyway?

Redemption wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Warseer has s pretty complete set of sprue pics http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3759108&postcount=366

No wheels at all but the tracks look as finicky as ever to put together. Er guys...

Looks the same as the current Landraider? Just sandwich the 2 sides, then put the tracks around them in specific slots?

From the staffer who assembled the tanks they are MUCH easier than old Russes, no track wheels to assemble on either kit.

I do build my own out of plasticard and other things, but thats beside the point. The point of my comment was not that 40k = toys. It was more a compairson on a relativistic scale. Even if it changes only a tiny amount it still changing in the direction of more toy like, because it is getting simplified. The point of the statement goes back to the fact that a significant portion of IG players that convert rely on the wheels and tracks as separate pieces to do the vast majority of their conversions.

It isn't so much a matter of simplification, but how the models are used. As the model kits move further and further away from being converter friendly, they become something that is more restrictive in how they are used. That de-emphasis away from the hobby to playing the game is what makes it more toy like.

EDIT:
An easier wheel system would have been better than no wheel system. I didn't want the kit more realistic, but the people who did will certainly have issues with this.