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.

I think I'll shoot some flyers with that Castigator. What do you think?...can it get the job done?

You are looking at around a Hull Point of damage in one volley against an AV12 flyer. 1 1/2 against AV10, with ~ a 1 in 10 chance of one-hit killing it by immobilising it and it failing the test to downgrade to... shaken I think. Still, its better than what you are currently looking at with Heavy Stubbers as the only available option for Knights atm.

 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.

Yeah, I have to say that even after all these years I still wince a little when I look at the "suspension" on a Land Raider or Leman Russ. Since they have a tendency to go back and "do-over" old kits, I still hope that one day they'll fix it up (especially on the Russ and Chimera chassis). It won't do crap for the many tanks that many of us have, but at least it'd be a sign of moving forward somewhat.

 Azazelx wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I have to say that even after all these years I still wince a little when I look at the "suspension" on a Land Raider or Leman Russ. Since they have a tendency to go back and "do-over" old kits, I still hope that one day they'll fix it up (especially on the Russ and Chimera chassis). It won't do crap for the many tanks that many of us have, but at least it'd be a sign of moving forward somewhat.

The point that's been made over and over again is that there's nothing to "fix", it's an aesthetic choice to evoke WW1 landships, and it's a choice a lot of us like.

 Dinamarth wrote:
For Dorn!

Here you go;

I'm a little late to the thread here (shut up, I've been traveling), but that's F'n sweet!

 Yodhrin wrote:
The point that's been made over and over again is that there's nothing to "fix", it's an aesthetic choice to evoke WW1 landships, and it's a choice a lot of us like.

No, it's just bad design. Look at this WWI tank:



It doesn't have any suspension and has the obsolete wrap-around tracks, but at least the tracks are wider than the side of the hull so you won't have the side of the tank digging into the ground. Now look at the Macharius:



Same track style, no problems. Now how about a Malcador:



Still clearly going for the "WWI landship" look, but at least has a bit of ground clearance. Now what about a Land Raider?



See the problem now? The tracks are narrower than the sides of the tank and sunk down into the gap, so on anything other than a perfectly flat paved surface the tracks will dig in a bit and the side of the tank will be dragging along the ground. This is just plain stupid design, and the only reason to do it this way is if you're too lazy to figure out how to make visible wheels underneath the tracks work properly. And here's a bonus, the old Land Raider that the current one replaced:



It's still a pretty bad model that deserved to be replaced, but even that version managed to do better than the current one!

The Malcador has the thinnest tracks of the lot.

But yeah, these designs are fine and complaining about the ground clearance on these things is a waste of energy.

Let's try not to apply logic to a game in which shooting someone with a giant cannon is less powerful than punching them in the face with a fist sometimes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But yeah, these designs are fine and complaining about the ground clearance on these things is a waste of energy.

I understand that GW is never going to change them and therefore complaining isn't going to accomplish anything, but that doesn't make the LR/Chimera/LRBT good designs. It's a stupid mistake and we should get better work for the obscene prices GW charges.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Let's try not to apply logic to a game in which shooting someone with a giant cannon is less powerful than punching them in the face with a fist sometimes.

It's not about applying strict realism, it's about what looks good as a model. For example, I know that a Valkyrie would never be able to fly in the real world, but it still looks cool because you have to really think about it to notice the flaws. Similarly, the Baneblade (especially the old FW version) is an awesome model because even though it has some design flaws it at least looks like it would be capable of moving and shooting without destroying itself. The LR/Chimera/LRBT tracks, on the other hand, just stand out as obviously wrong. It's like if GW made a new space marine model with one arm missing: it's less "rule of cool" and more "the designer has no clue how a tank works".

This is an internet forum. Since when is complaining about anything Games Workshop related on here not a waste of energy.

Some opinions are verboten.

New bulletin by the way: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/News/FORGE_WORLD_BULLETIN_33.html

 BrookM wrote:
Some opinions are verboten.

New bulletin by the way: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/News/FORGE_WORLD_BULLETIN_33.html

Vorax!

What does the fluff say about these things? Are they fast-moving hunter killers or something like that?

I like the Vorax. Not sure of their usefulness ruleswise, but that's a pretty neat sculpt.

Hope to see the Ursarax soon!

These fellers?

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YDpZ_fUYOu8/U-tjrZkyD_I/AAAAAAAAKoc/4tc7M2-y_ko/s1600/Ursarax_WIP_02.JPG[img]

edit.

Derp, just now noticed they're conversions! /ignore

Got my hopes up...

 BrookM wrote:
What does the fluff say about these things? Are they fast-moving hunter killers or something like that?

They're fast attack hunter killer robots. Background has them as dedicated search and destroy machines hunting down rogue machines and vermin. Armed with two rotor cannons and a lightning gun, they're t6 s6 Monstrous Creatures with fleet and scout. Can be bought as a maniple of 5.

They're basically a re-envisioning of the old Crusader robots.

 zedmeister wrote:
They're fast attack hunter killer robots. Background has them as dedicated search and destroy machines hunting down rogue machines and vermin. Armed with two rotor cannons and a lightning gun, they're t6 s6 Monstrous Creatures with fleet and scout. Can be bought as a maniple of 5.

Where are the rules for these things?

I'm quite liking the sort of insectile head they've done for this. I'm sure we'll see some freaky weapon options for these
I think it's on a Dreadnought sized base, though I could be mistaken.

The rules are in Book 3.
Yeah, I think it is on a 60mm base. The only weapon options currently are that the lightning gun can be replaced with an Irad cleanser. Still, 2 rotor cannons, a lightning gun and power blades is pretty neat.

Can anyone tell me what this thing is? I wanna say a Skaven Pit Abomination but it doesn't look particularly rat-like.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Can anyone tell me what this thing is? I wanna say a Skaven Pit Abomination but it doesn't look particularly rat-like.

It's a spawn.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat, it's that small? fething hell, looking at that painted masterpiece I thought it was a big ass monster.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
They're fast attack hunter killer robots. Background has them as dedicated search and destroy machines hunting down rogue machines and vermin. Armed with two rotor cannons and a lightning gun, they're t6 s6 Monstrous Creatures with fleet and scout. Can be bought as a maniple of 5.

Where are the rules for these things?

HH Book 3: Extermination. They're part of the Taghmata Omnissiah list

Really? I have that book. How the hell did I miss them...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Really? I have that book. How the hell did I miss them...

Page 226 bud. Though I just realised, I didn't remember the Ursarax cohort!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Can anyone tell me what this thing is? I wanna say a Skaven Pit Abomination but it doesn't look particularly rat-like.

It's a spawn.

Huh. Must've missed that release. Quite liking that sorceror model though

 zedmeister wrote:
Page 226 bud. Though I just realised, I didn't remember the Ursarax cohort!

Yeah I just found my copy and had a look. It mentions they are based off the Crusader-Pattern, which is a nice way of acknowledging the past.

And yeah, the Ursarax Cohort. They sound pretty beastly. Can't wait to see those. What else are we missing now (from a model perspective) for the Taghmata?

Pretty much tech priests really. After that, it's weapon variants for the existing models.

Yeah, it would be nice if the Myrmidons actually came with all their weapon options, rather than one of each of the three of the five possible weapons.

And that was a weird sentence to write. One of three of five? Uhhgh!