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.

well then...those new knights have my attention. very cool indeed

 Ratius wrote:
Really love the Triaros except for the central gun spine thing. Dosent work at all imo.

My problem with it is that it has almost no ground clearance. That tank is not going to be able to drive on anything other than flat road.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Really love the Triaros except for the central gun spine thing. Dosent work at all imo.

My problem with it is that it has almost no ground clearance. That tank is not going to be able to drive on anything other than flat road.

I don't know for sure since we haven't seen it in bits and pieces, but I think the idea is that the hull can tilt up and down separate of the tracks, kinda like the Krios' gun does. Does that improve clearance?-only to the same degree that a suspension of disbelief that allows us to believe bolters, tyranids, etc allow. Generally it seems to have as much clearance as any other Imperial Vehicle. Its easy to lose perspective with how weird 40k heroic scale is. Consider the land raider, next to a marine without a base the clearance of the hull is somewhere along the upper shin. Relative to a 7-8ft tall marine that implies a ground clearance of about ~1-1/2 ft which is the ball park clearance of WWII to present day armored vehicles. Leman Russ tanks and Chimeras only have more and the mechanicus vehicles seem to have as much as well as some flexibility.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Consider the land raider, next to a marine without a base the clearance of the hull is somewhere along the upper shin. Relative to a 7-8ft tall marine that implies a ground clearance of about ~1-1/2 ft which is the ball park clearance of WWII to present day armored vehicles. Leman Russ tanks and Chimeras only have more and the mechanicus vehicles seem to have as much as well as some flexibility.

This is wrong. The Land Raider has maybe an inch or two of ground clearance, and only on hard surfaces. The issue isn't the height of the center hull, it's that the side plates extend all the way to the ground. If the tracks move up by even a small amount you immediately have the lower edge of the hull dragging on the ground. And of course if the ground is at all soft the tracks will sink in a bit and then the hull is stuck in the mud.

Ignoring sinking into the terrain and whatnot, a Land Raider's tracks could drive over something. The Triaros has a huge wedge on its front that would prevent its tracks from reaching any obstacles to climb over.

Land Raiders aren't exactly well designed, but this is worse.

Ground clearance is necessary only to those without the favor of the machine spirit and the light of the almighty god Emperor.

Well it looks like I'll have 2 more knights to buy...

Exactly ..... have an exalt .

I want to turn one into a train.

Archeaon is he Greek God of pain
Megaera is the god who punishes those who cheat on spouses.

That is one sexy looking riptide, with a giant flamer if my eyes are correct?

A giant triple flamer.

Drive me closer!

beast_gts wrote:
Forge World Newsflash - Available at the Forge World European Open Day‏

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:


My problem with it is that it has almost no ground clearance. That tank is not going to be able to drive on anything other than flat road.

Looking at some of the other pics on the net, it seems that the ground clearance is not all that bad.
The problem is the long front overhang of the "plow" and that the vehicle has no obstacle climbing ability because of the track configuration. At the first hill it encounters, the plow is going to dig into the hill and that will be it for movement,

Swap the tracks front to back however, and you are much better off...

So when can we expect rules on that Riptide? At the event?

I'm going to give a dissenting opinion on that Riptide variant. There's very little I like about it. The upper arms are longer than the plastic kit and end up looking too spindly, the narrow jet pack unbalances the design by overly concentrating the visual interest to the center line, and the flat topped chest and gorget make it too step-wise. But the flamers look cool and I'm curious to see the other gun (fusion weapon perhaps?)

beast_gts wrote:
Forge World Newsflash - Available at the Forge World European Open Day‏

That thing screams Hot Rod, and somehow makes me think of the car in league of the extraordinary men.

 Peregrine wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Consider the land raider, next to a marine without a base the clearance of the hull is somewhere along the upper shin. Relative to a 7-8ft tall marine that implies a ground clearance of about ~1-1/2 ft which is the ball park clearance of WWII to present day armored vehicles. Leman Russ tanks and Chimeras only have more and the mechanicus vehicles seem to have as much as well as some flexibility.

This is wrong. The Land Raider has maybe an inch or two of ground clearance, and only on hard surfaces. The issue isn't the height of the center hull, it's that the side plates extend all the way to the ground. If the tracks move up by even a small amount you immediately have the lower edge of the hull dragging on the ground. And of course if the ground is at all soft the tracks will sink in a bit and then the hull is stuck in the mud.

The problem is that GW took a design that had larger tracks that extended over the edge of those plates and trimmed them back to be recessed.

 Kanluwen wrote:
A giant triple flamer.

Y'know what people will hate? That thing with intercepter. If it has torrent. But PLZ AP3

Love all of these new models, I can't wait to see more photos in the coming days.

I logged on though today because I had to say this to all of the "haters" out there:

Don't get my wrong, I am the first to rag on GW for when they take influence from other artists in the sci fi world. For the record I have no love for Necrons simply because they are so much of a copy of Terminator.

But, that said, all of you that claim that the Imperial Knight concept is a theft from Warmachines/Hordes need to check your attitude and righteousness at the door.

I came on Dakka tonight to rant about this simple fact.

Warmachine was/is a spin off company that was born from people that left GW. The Warjack is a direct copy of the early titan models. The entire company is based off of an appropriation of the early designs for GW titans.

While I commend PP for their efforts to create a solid gaming platform with a large fan base, if anyone were to sit down and ask the designer who first came up with the concept of a Warjack and ask them "what was your inspiration", the answer would be an Epic Warlord Titan.

So, while I am the first to jump on the bandwagon whenever I know that GW is stealing IP from other sci-fi masters, I will also be the first to call out those companies that steal from the 40k Universe and make millions doing so.

If, as a professional artist, I was the designer, or share holder who came up with the original Warlord titan model, and I then had to watch PP press build their business model off of a direct theft of my aesthetic, I sh@t you not, the first opportunity I had to drive that companies "image" into the ground I would take it.

The concept of the "knight/warjack", was born from the early years of 40k not the other way around. I for one commend GW's efforts to reclaim this design by putting money into producing the highest quality models out there that represent a single pilot, non anime based war machine.

GW sucks for a lot of reasons, but reclaiming a concept that was originally theirs is not one of them.

Every single time that you think "that looks like a warjack" I want you to consider that a "warjack" is a direct theft from the concept for an Imperial Knight.

Just had to put that out there.



Know Your Roots.

Everything is taken from everything else. Hell, I know some people say fan art is unoriginal, but I see it as a jumping off platform. It is a way for people to build their skills. Same with insiration, just because they took the ideas, doesnt mean that they didnt change it to fit their vision

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Consider the land raider, next to a marine without a base the clearance of the hull is somewhere along the upper shin. Relative to a 7-8ft tall marine that implies a ground clearance of about ~1-1/2 ft which is the ball park clearance of WWII to present day armored vehicles. Leman Russ tanks and Chimeras only have more and the mechanicus vehicles seem to have as much as well as some flexibility.

This is wrong. The Land Raider has maybe an inch or two of ground clearance, and only on hard surfaces. The issue isn't the height of the center hull, it's that the side plates extend all the way to the ground. If the tracks move up by even a small amount you immediately have the lower edge of the hull dragging on the ground. And of course if the ground is at all soft the tracks will sink in a bit and then the hull is stuck in the mud.

The problem is that GW took a design that had larger tracks that extended over the edge of those plates and trimmed them back to be recessed.

Really guys? You're still worried about ground clearance on these things?

Anyone going that wants to pick me up a Y'Vahra? ;P will tip. That thing looks great to me, a close ranged variant would be nice!

 Heliodore wrote:
Looks like the Archeron is based off of FW's full-resin knight and the Questoris is a hybrid kit with GW's plastic knight!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer the above question that is!

Great looking stuff, nice break from the Legion kits!

Makes sense ta! Guess I need both. With the rumoured HH book 4 launching soon and the new Magos model I've spent my budget for WarhammerFest already :(

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Really guys? You're still worried about ground clearance on these things?

Yes, because it's such a stupid problem to have. Anyone who knows anything about how tanks work can look at a LR (or LRBT or Chimera) and see that there's an obvious problem. And it's not like GW doesn't know how to make proper tanks, the Rhino and Baneblade have proper tracks with a suspension, and even the Malcador hulls have at least a bit of ground clearance. The Land Raider is just lazy design work.

 Peregrine wrote:
The Land Raider is just lazy design work.

Please stop insulting Jes Goodwin. I'm sorry you don't like the design and think that it is flawed, but looking back at all the work that was put in the the update of the current land raider from it's previous version, saying it's lazy is really not knowing all the work that has been put in to it.

 midget_overlord wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The Land Raider is just lazy design work.

Please stop insulting Jes Goodwin. I'm sorry you don't like the design and think that it is flawed, but looking back at all the work that was put in the the update of the current land raider from it's previous version, saying it's lazy is really not knowing all the work that has been put in to it.

but he is right, especially compared to the mark 1 land raider at least that had ground clearance. honestly i just wish FW would release the actual mark 2, not these proteus mock versions

fireangel wrote:

The concept of the "knight/warjack", was born from the early years of 40k not the other way around. I for one commend GW's efforts to reclaim this design by putting money into producing the highest quality models out there that represent a single pilot, non anime based war machine.

GW sucks for a lot of reasons, but reclaiming a concept that was originally theirs is not one of them.

Every single time that you think "that looks like a warjack" I want you to consider that a "warjack" is a direct theft from the concept for an Imperial Knight.

Just had to put that out there.



Know Your Roots.

Someone has to do it, so I will.

 TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

 midget_overlord wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The Land Raider is just lazy design work.

Please stop insulting Jes Goodwin. I'm sorry you don't like the design and think that it is flawed, but looking back at all the work that was put in the the update of the current land raider from it's previous version, saying it's lazy is really not knowing all the work that has been put in to it.

but he is right, especially compared to the mark 1 land raider at least that had ground clearance. honestly i just wish FW would release the actual mark 2, not these proteus mock versions

GW left realism and common sense behind from the beginning. I wish they were more realistic, I really do. But they are sculptors, not engineers or soldiers. And most of their target demographic just wants cool looking models, not technically feasible models driven by an understanding of physics and common sense. So, that’s why the models look the way they do. I mean, they are in fact designed by the same company that gave sniper rifles to the worst shots in the whole SM army. Chew on that for a minute… Could you really take them seriously after that? I just look for models I like and play games when I can.

Here is that Transport at a bit of a better angle.

 Peregrine wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Really guys? You're still worried about ground clearance on these things?

Yes, because it's such a stupid problem to have. Anyone who knows anything about how tanks work can look at a LR (or LRBT or Chimera) and see that there's an obvious problem. And it's not like GW doesn't know how to make proper tanks, the Rhino and Baneblade have proper tracks with a suspension, and even the Malcador hulls have at least a bit of ground clearance. The Land Raider is just lazy design work.

It's a reference to the WW1 British tanks (Mark IV etc.) that had no suspension and pretty minimal clearance. It was designed to crawl across mud, craters and trenches at 5 km/h, so it didn't need such fancy things. Smaller tanks of the same era, like Renault FT, did actually have a suspension, though.