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.

 Bodacious2182 wrote:
Does the Khorne Knight and Chaos knight come as one kit or do I have to buy the Lord of skulls and the Imperial Knight kit in addition? In other words, is what is shown just and upgrade kit or an all in one package?

If somebody already mentioned this I missed it.

I brought both, the Knight comes with all three of the old Knight sprues so you can equip it with either a melta or a battlecannon. The Khorne Knight comes with two plastic sprues from the Dozer, enough to build the entire Khorne Knight but you don't get the tracks or gunk tanks that come with the Dozer kit.

 Looky Likey wrote:

 Bodacious2182 wrote:
Does the Khorne Knight and Chaos knight come as one kit or do I have to buy the Lord of skulls and the Imperial Knight kit in addition? In other words, is what is shown just and upgrade kit or an all in one package?

If somebody already mentioned this I missed it.

I brought both, the Knight comes with all three of the old Knight sprues so you can equip it with either a melta or a battlecannon. The Khorne Knight comes with two plastic sprues from the Dozer, enough to build the entire Khorne Knight but you don't get the tracks or gunk tanks that come with the Dozer kit.

Oooh. I like that this basically means that a Chaos Knight can be fielded with the Warden kit weapon options... Out of curiosity, does the new top shell still have that little hole where you plug in the Icarus Autocannon/Missile/Rocket pods?

 Enigwolf wrote:
The Tigershark was their short-term solution to pressing needs while their Earth Caste engineers devise a counter to Imperial Titans (which, I won't be surprised, is the rationale used to explain the mega-battlesuit)

The problem with this theory is that the Tigershark is a better solution than its replacement, and a superheavy railgun skimmer (as the old Epic rules had) would also be better than the current abomination. Also, nothing in the fluff of the Tigershark says that it's a temporary solution. In fact, the opposite is true, as railgun Tigersharks are explicitly seeing more and more use after the initial successes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
The Tigershark was their short-term solution to pressing needs while their Earth Caste engineers devise a counter to Imperial Titans (which, I won't be surprised, is the rationale used to explain the mega-battlesuit)

The problem with this theory is that the Tigershark is a better solution than its replacement, and a superheavy railgun skimmer (as the old Epic rules had) would also be better than the current abomination. Also, nothing in the fluff of the Tigershark says that it's a temporary solution. In fact, the opposite is true, as railgun Tigersharks are explicitly seeing more and more use after the initial successes.

Nothing in the fluff either suggests that the Tigershark AX 1-0 is the end-all solution to the Titan problem. If anything, they're still only seen in limited numbers for specialized targets. And just because a retrofit seems to work out doesn't mean that it can't see inclusion as standard in battle deployments - we've seen this with Space Marines and Imperial Guard with the relative flexibility of their standardized chassis (Rhino, Leman Russ, Chimera, Land Raider).

We also haven't seen any rules for the new Tau battlesuit nor read any fluff for it, so it's unfair to already call the Tigershark "a better solution than its replacement".

 Enigwolf wrote:
Nothing in the fluff either suggests that the Tigershark AX 1-0 is the end-all solution to the Titan problem.

It's still a better solution than the giant anime robot. And, as I said, if the Tau want another anti-titan weapon the proper solution is to build a superheavy skimmer like the old Epic rules gave them.

If anything, they're still only seen in limited numbers for specialized targets.

Only because they're new and not yet in full-scale production. The fluff pretty strongly suggests that this is a temporary problem and the railgun Tigershark is intended to be a standard unit in the future.

We also haven't seen any rules for the new Tau battlesuit nor read any fluff for it, so it's unfair to already call the Tigershark "a better solution than its replacement".

It isn't unfair at all, because giant anime robots are inherently stupid. It has massive ground pressure and stability problems, so even if it somehow manages to walk to a fight without getting immobilized in soft ground it will probably fall over and explode as soon as it tries to fire those high-mounted railguns. And if it ever gets shot at the inherent geometry problems of a bipedal form ensure that it will have much thinner armor than a tank of equivalent size. And, unlike the Tigershark, it can't effectively ignore everything but dedicated AA weapons. Finally, it lacks the Tigershark's ability to quickly respond to a titan threat and is completely useless if the titan doesn't come to it.

Now, FW will almost certainly give it powerful rules because they want to sell a bunch of copies of the kit, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense fluff-wise.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
Nothing in the fluff either suggests that the Tigershark AX 1-0 is the end-all solution to the Titan problem.

It's still a better solution than the giant anime robot. And, as I said, if the Tau want another anti-titan weapon the proper solution is to build a superheavy skimmer like the old Epic rules gave them.

If anything, they're still only seen in limited numbers for specialized targets.

Only because they're new and not yet in full-scale production. The fluff pretty strongly suggests that this is a temporary problem and the railgun Tigershark is intended to be a standard unit in the future.

Enigwolf wrote:And just because a retrofit seems to work out doesn't mean that it can't see inclusion as standard in battle deployments

 Peregrine wrote:

It isn't unfair at all, because giant anime robots are inherently stupid. It has massive ground pressure and stability problems, so even if it somehow manages to walk to a fight without getting immobilized in soft ground it will probably fall over and explode as soon as it tries to fire those high-mounted railguns. And if it ever gets shot at the inherent geometry problems of a bipedal form ensure that it will have much thinner armor than a tank of equivalent size. And, unlike the Tigershark, it can't effectively ignore everything but dedicated AA weapons. Finally, it lacks the Tigershark's ability to quickly respond to a titan threat and is completely useless if the titan doesn't come to it.

Now, FW will almost certainly give it powerful rules because they want to sell a bunch of copies of the kit, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense fluff-wise.

For the record, I dislike giant anime robots, and absolutely abhor them. When I ran Tau as allies for my Grey Knights, I was converting them to Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii and Legio Cybernetica instead (pre-Skitarii and CM 'dexes).

You can say what you want about bipedal forms all you want, but the Eldar and Imperium have proved that Titan warfare are completely viable forms of warfare in the 40k universe. If you're arguing inherently about proportions, then it's not impossible to also assume that Tau technology is advanced enough to counter any issues a bipedal form may have. Your point about armor is rendered moot by, again, Imperial and Eldar titans, which have technologies to provide equivalent, if not superior forms of defense than simple tonnes of armour plating (Void shields and holofields respectively). In fact, the argument about ground pressure and stability is irrelevant when fighting in lower than 1-G environments, because now you can no longer apply Earth physics to the equation in a comparative manner. Walkers have an inherent advantage over tanks due to mobility. Which brings us back to Tau hover tanks.

We also don't know how Tau repulsion technology works, which also potentially runs counter to your argument of equivalent armour tonnage on a similar-mass vehicle chassis. It suffers from the same problem that modern jets do - propulsion requires fuel, which creates extra weight that then needs more propulsion, and thus, more fuel. As a result of this, you might not be able to slap on as much armour as you would on a tracked vehicle.

Long post short: There are too many unknowns for you to definitely claim whether a giant Tau battlesuit is a "better solution" or not for the Tau.

Re-emphasis: I hate giant anime robots, aesthetically.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:

 Bodacious2182 wrote:
Does the Khorne Knight and Chaos knight come as one kit or do I have to buy the Lord of skulls and the Imperial Knight kit in addition? In other words, is what is shown just and upgrade kit or an all in one package?

If somebody already mentioned this I missed it.

I brought both, the Knight comes with all three of the old Knight sprues so you can equip it with either a melta or a battlecannon. The Khorne Knight comes with two plastic sprues from the Dozer, enough to build the entire Khorne Knight but you don't get the tracks or gunk tanks that come with the Dozer kit.

Oooh. I like that this basically means that a Chaos Knight can be fielded with the Warden kit weapon options... Out of curiosity, does the new top shell still have that little hole where you plug in the Icarus Autocannon/Missile/Rocket pods?

Yes it does have the hole, which is one of the reasons I was disapointed that we only got the old sprues.

 Looky Likey wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:

 Bodacious2182 wrote:
Does the Khorne Knight and Chaos knight come as one kit or do I have to buy the Lord of skulls and the Imperial Knight kit in addition? In other words, is what is shown just and upgrade kit or an all in one package?

If somebody already mentioned this I missed it.

I brought both, the Knight comes with all three of the old Knight sprues so you can equip it with either a melta or a battlecannon. The Khorne Knight comes with two plastic sprues from the Dozer, enough to build the entire Khorne Knight but you don't get the tracks or gunk tanks that come with the Dozer kit.

Oooh. I like that this basically means that a Chaos Knight can be fielded with the Warden kit weapon options... Out of curiosity, does the new top shell still have that little hole where you plug in the Icarus Autocannon/Missile/Rocket pods?

Yes it does have the hole, which is one of the reasons I was disapointed that we only got the old sprues.

For how much you're paying over a regular Knight kit, that's such a pity.

Disclaimer #1: I love the Tigershark model and I think it makes perfect sense as an anti-Titan weapon.

Disclaimer #2: I'd love to see FW do some more Tau tanks and/or aircraft. Wouldn't even need to be super-heavy necessarily, just heavier than the Hammerhead (think Landraider plus sized).

Having got those in, my first reaction to that new suit was "holy s@!t, that's awesome!" From a fluff point of view, I don't think this is for fighting the imperium, I see this as being an anti-Tyranids platform, as someone suggested a few pages ago.

I just have a vision in my mind of this thing standing alone in a sea of gribblies (a la Starship Troopers), with all those secondary weapons annihilating the hordes trying to climb up its legs whilst the main guns blast away at the monstrosities. To me that gives it a justifiable reason to exist; normal infantry aren't going to survive in that environment and tanks without infantry are dead meat. And a few strafing passes by a Tigershark just aren't going to put down anywhere near enough volume of firepower to deal with a horde.

Or that's how I'm going to rationalise it anyway.

 Enigwolf wrote:
You can say what you want about bipedal forms all you want, but the Eldar and Imperium have proved that Titan warfare are completely viable forms of warfare in the 40k universe.

Viable, if you're stubborn enough to do it? Maybe. A good idea? No. What the Eldar and Imperium have done is prove that, with sufficiently advanced technology, you can let your idiot priests build their walking religious icons and they'll function. Both factions would still be better off abandoning the religious idiocy and building proper weapons with that advanced technology*. And of course the Tau have neither religion nor idiot priests to appease, so making a titan would be stupid.

*Not that they ever would, of course, which is part of their identity in 40k.

If you're arguing inherently about proportions, then it's not impossible to also assume that Tau technology is advanced enough to counter any issues a bipedal form may have.

No, you can't make that assumption because these are basic problems of geometry. A bipedal shape has more surface area than a tank with equivalent internal components (gun, sensors, etc), so if you have the same weight budget for armor the tank will have much thicker armor. A bipedal shape is inherently unstable because it has very little, if any, range of motion available before its center of gravity moves outside of its contact points. Etc. Advanced technology can build you a walker that "works" despite these problems (active stabilization systems, etc) but it's still going to be laughably inefficient compared to more sensible designs.

Your point about armor is rendered moot by, again, Imperial and Eldar titans, which have technologies to provide equivalent, if not superior forms of defense than simple tonnes of armour plating (Void shields and holofields respectively).

Both void shields and holofields would be even more effective on a tank.

In fact, the argument about ground pressure and stability is irrelevant when fighting in lower than 1-G environments, because now you can no longer apply Earth physics to the equation in a comparative manner.

Of course you can apply Earth physics, you just have a slightly different value for g. The stability and ground pressure problems still exist, they just have different numbers involved. And of course 40k also has higher-gravity environments where ground pressure is even more of a problem than it would be in the real world.

Walkers have an inherent advantage over tanks due to mobility.

No they don't. Walkers have terrible mobility because of ground pressure and stability issues. The tank will probably be faster and will certainly be capable of operating on a wider range of terrain. The only reason walkers have a mobility advantage is that game designers needed a reason to justify their existence and decided on mobility.

It suffers from the same problem that modern jets do - propulsion requires fuel, which creates extra weight that then needs more propulsion, and thus, more fuel. As a result of this, you might not be able to slap on as much armour as you would on a tracked vehicle.

So build a tracked vehicle then. It's still going to be better in every way than the giant anime robot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:
And a few strafing passes by a Tigershark just aren't going to put down anywhere near enough volume of firepower to deal with a horde.

Then you drop a tactical nuke. Or send a Manta to hover over the swarm and laugh as you slaughter the helpless Tyranids.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you're arguing inherently about proportions, then it's not impossible to also assume that Tau technology is advanced enough to counter any issues a bipedal form may have.

No, you can't make that assumption because these are basic problems of geometry. A bipedal shape has more surface area than a tank with equivalent internal components (gun, sensors, etc), so if you have the same weight budget for armor the tank will have much thicker armor. A bipedal shape is inherently unstable because it has very little, if any, range of motion available before its center of gravity moves outside of its contact points. Etc. Advanced technology can build you a walker that "works" despite these problems (active stabilization systems, etc) but it's still going to be laughably inefficient compared to more sensible designs.

I'm not arguing that bipedal vehicles would require more conventional armour and thus more tonnage for equivalent armour. I'm arguing that defensive tactics that isn't armour-centric validates the possibility of using a walker to counter a biped's inherent disadvantages - such as armour tonnage. Holofields and void shields make sense for walkers.

Your point about armor is rendered moot by, again, Imperial and Eldar titans, which have technologies to provide equivalent, if not superior forms of defense than simple tonnes of armour plating (Void shields and holofields respectively).

Both void shields and holofields would be even more effective on a tank.

Justification? A walker has a FAR bigger range of movement than a tank - defensive tactics that revolve around dodging attacks, aka holofields, capitalizes on this.

In fact, the argument about ground pressure and stability is irrelevant when fighting in lower than 1-G environments, because now you can no longer apply Earth physics to the equation in a comparative manner.

Of course you can apply Earth physics, you just have a slightly different value for g. The stability and ground pressure problems still exist, they just have different numbers involved. And of course 40k also has higher-gravity environments where ground pressure is even more of a problem than it would be in the real world.

Read the end of my statement, in a comparative manner. A low-G environment can negate the stability issues. I'm not even going into the physics for this, Google it.

Walkers have an inherent advantage over tanks due to mobility.

No they don't. Walkers have terrible mobility because of ground pressure and stability issues. The tank will probably be faster and will certainly be capable of operating on a wider range of terrain. The only reason walkers have a mobility advantage is that game designers needed a reason to justify their existence and decided on mobility.

Ask any soldier what's more mobile, particularly in tight spaces, and he'll tell you for sure that anything with two feet is more maneuverable than something on tracks.

While bipeds can sidestep and change direction of movement near-instantaneously (given the constraints of momentum, which, I might add, any moving piece of mass would also be subject to, including tanks), tracked vehicles are unable to do the same. In fact, tracked vehicles take a ridiculously long time to come to a new heading (trust me, my infantry platoon was mechanized), that is why infantry are the bane of armored vehicles in urban operations. Hover-tanks would eliminate this issue, but I refer to my next point about hover-tanks.

(I'm not arguing that a tank, however, is superior for maneuver warfare over large pieces of open terrain.)

It suffers from the same problem that modern jets do - propulsion requires fuel, which creates extra weight that then needs more propulsion, and thus, more fuel. As a result of this, you might not be able to slap on as much armour as you would on a tracked vehicle.

So build a tracked vehicle then. It's still going to be better in every way than the giant anime robot.

I refer you back to the last point about walker mobility over that of tracked vehicles.

At the end of the day, you cannot argue that a walker, a tracked vehicle, or a hover-tank of similar tonnage is the "best" out of the three. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to the factions/races/scientists/engineers involved to decide what is most relevant for them.

 whalemusic360 wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 whalemusic360 wrote:
Did they say anything about the other Warlord guns and heads, or better yet show something?

Aww yis. That is the head I will have. Any info on it beyond the photo?

Apparantly they aren't sure if they want to release the alternative one shown at the last event (the really retro one; I don't really care I thought it looked stupid), Darren Parwood has like a whole sketchbook of designs for them. That's all I could find though, no timeframes or anything.

 Enigwolf wrote:
A walker has a FAR bigger range of movement than a tank - defensive tactics that revolve around dodging attacks, aka holofields, capitalizes on this.

It only has a bigger range of movement if you handwave away all of the stability and ground pressure problems. And even then you can still build a flyer/skimmer/etc (like the Eldar do) that is also capable of dodging, and can do it better than the walker.

A low-G environment can negate the stability issues.

No it can't. It can reduce the problem a bit, but it's not going to have any significant effect unless you're talking about an environment well outside of the normal 1g. And while those environments do exist in 40k they're not even close to the standard. So you're talking about designing a giant anime robot specifically for a very narrow range of potential battles, instead of just building a sensible weapon which can also function in normal-gravity environments.

Ask any soldier what's more mobile, particularly in tight spaces, and he'll tell you for sure that anything with two feet is more maneuverable than something on tracks.

Yes, but that's because humans and their feet are below the point where scaling becomes a problem. We're very mobile because the ground pressure of our feet is way below the maximum tolerance of most surfaces, we're small enough that the square-cube law isn't a fatal problem, and we have millions of years of evolution giving us constant active stabilization without any conscious thought. Giant anime robots, on the other hand, are on the wrong end of those scaling issues.

While bipeds can sidestep and change direction of movement near-instantaneously (given the constraints of momentum, which, I might add, any moving piece of mass would also be subject to, including tanks), tracked vehicles are unable to do the same.

It's not just the momentum you have to overcome, you have to consider ground pressure and inertia as you come out of the sidestep. If your giant anime robot moves too quickly the ground pressure of its feet spikes and it digs into the ground, probably with fatal consequences. And if you survive the initial spike of starting the sidestep you have another huge spike of ground pressure when you have to stop all those tons of metal before you overshoot and lose your balance. And you have to make sure that your giant anime robot's structure can survive that sudden load spike as its foot smashes into the ground. So the giant anime robot would have to be incredibly slow and careful about every step to ensure that it doesn't crash.

I refer you back to the last point about walker mobility over that of tracked vehicles.

And I refer you back to the previous point about walker mobility being game mechanics nonsense from designers who needed a gameplay role for walkers, not a plausible thing fluff-wise.

At the end of the day, you cannot argue that a walker, a tracked vehicle, or a hover-tank of similar tonnage is the "best" out of the three.

Sure I can. Large walkers are fundamentally stupid and only "work" if you handwave away all of their massive and inherent design problems. There is no plausible scenario where building giant anime robots is a good idea.

It doesn't really matter does it. Some people like it, some don't, this has gone on for 2/3 pages now.

To some it is a matter so serious that they are willing to debate it until the mods warn them several times to finally drop it.

ImAGeek wrote:It doesn't really matter does it. Some people like it, some don't, this has gone on for 2/3 pages now.

BrookM wrote:To some it is a matter so serious that they are willing to debate it until the mods warn them several times to finally drop it.

I'd argue the last 2/3 pages of discussing the relative merits/demerits of Forge World producing a new Tau superheavy walker where previous design ethos and background has dictated that such things do not exist and are antithetical to the Tau way of war is more constructive and interesting than either of your posts and entirely appropriate for a Forge World News & Rumours thread, or would you rather three pages of "I like this" and "I don't like this"?

The Tau explicitly NOT having superheavy walkers was a really nice part of their background that set them apart from all the other races and defied the expectations of everyone who assumed that the obviously anime-inspired Tau would naturally have Gundams to counter the other races' giant bipedal (or hexapedal) walkers.

This? this does away with that unique distinguishing characteristic. Well done on removing one of the few pieces of Tau background and design ethos I actually liked, GW.

The Chaos Titan design is horrible, but the rules are OK. like every other chaos player I would have liked options for the other types of knights and carapace weapons but giving us a 5+ all-round save in addition to the Ion Shield and letting us take Legacies of Ruin on them is nice. It's good that all the Chaos knight conversions that have been popping up can now be represented (but I'm not a massive fan of Lords of War)

the Kytan's a bit underwhelming, one ranged weapon, a big hacky cleaver, seems a bit boring. I would have liked a new generic Daemon Engine of which the Kytan was one possible version, but it doesnt really affect me anyway

I think the reasoning is clear: Big stompy, shooty, pew-pew-pew robots that will sell like hell? Fluff be damned.

This isn't the first time, nor the last time that fluff has been given a polite shove to the side in favour of making something cool.

With all this talk about walkers versus tanks, I think people have lost sight of the real issues here...

...such as whether a Star Destroyer's turbolasers are more powerful than the Enterprise's phasers. Or whether Goku is scientifically stronger than Superman.

Seriously though, arguing semantics about the designs really misses out on the fantasy part of "science-fantasy", the genre behind 40k. If the 40k world says bipedal walkers are an acceptable solution, then it is so. You may think it's stupid, and you may not like the aesthetics, but following that up with "because..." is equally silly, since the canon can simply make up a fantasy response.

That being said, the new walker is okay... but I would have rather it been on a big skimmer tank, like a taller, beefier hammerhead.

 Xca|iber wrote:
With all this talk about walkers versus tanks, I think people have lost sight of the real issues here...

...such as whether a Star Destroyer's turbolasers are more powerful than the Enterprise's phasers. Or whether Goku is scientifically stronger than Superman.

Seriously though, arguing semantics about the designs really misses out on the fantasy part of "science-fantasy", the genre behind 40k. If the 40k world says bipedal walkers are an acceptable solution, then it is so. You may think it's stupid, and you may not like the aesthetics, but following that up with "because..." is equally silly, since the canon can simply make up a fantasy response.

That being said, the new walker is okay... but I would have rather it been on a big skimmer tank, like a taller, beefier hammerhead.

I agree with the last three posts. So, I'll agree to disagree with Peregrine (not sure what exactly I'm disagreeing on, since each design has its own strengths and merits).

Like Charax, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about FW's shift to "lots of big walkers", though, particularly as it relates to the Tau aesthetic. I would definitely have much preferred something along the lines of the Eldar super-heavy grav-tanks like the Lynx.

 Xca|iber wrote:
That being said, the new walker is okay... but I would have rather it been on a big skimmer tank, like a taller, beefier hammerhead.

I think that quote of mine in your sig works very well here.

I actually really like the new Tau titan. It feels like a Riptide version of the Broadsides. Whereas the Riptide, Rvarna and the other one (with triple flamers) are all upsized and uparmoured Crisis and Stealth suits, focused on mobility and speed for as much firepower, this looks like an upsized Broadside. The over the shoulder weapons are like the classic broadsides in 4th/5th that were just add-ons to the Crisis Suit, while the bully chest and legs are like the newer Broadsides. It looks like it would move so slower but when it looks at you, you know you arenin trouble.

A Big skimmer would have made more sense, although I don't know what this new tau gundam is meant to counter MEQ spam or whatever (maybe a lack of FW orders from Japan?).

Maybe the designers see that as more Eldar's thing, but even so Tau have traditionally been more air power based, they made the manta, so if something flying is too much why not a hovering gunship like a better valkyrie might have worked.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Xca|iber wrote:
That being said, the new walker is okay... but I would have rather it been on a big skimmer tank, like a taller, beefier hammerhead.

I think that quote of mine in your sig works very well here.

It really does.

I look forward to the day when FW releases the "Imperator-Dominus-Ultima-Pattern Emperor Titan" - just a pair of $3000 plastic boots that you put on and then stomp across the table with. You'll be able to proxy them with these. It will be the pinnacle of giant stompy robots.

I just read that Perturabo was Edgar Skomorowski's last work and he will leave FW ... that will delay the Primarch output again.

Are those Void Shields on the top of the Mastodon?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Mastodon:

Spoiler:

The Warlord Titan has similar nodules.

 Enigwolf wrote:
Re-emphasis: I hate giant anime robots, aesthetically.

I don't, I just don't want them for Tau.

 Xca|iber wrote:
With all this talk about walkers versus tanks, I think people have lost sight of the real issues here...

...such as whether a Star Destroyer's turbolasers are more powerful than the Enterprise's phasers. Or whether Goku is scientifically stronger than Superman.

Seriously though, arguing semantics about the designs really misses out on the fantasy part of "science-fantasy", the genre behind 40k. If the 40k world says bipedal walkers are an acceptable solution, then it is so. You may think it's stupid, and you may not like the aesthetics, but following that up with "because..." is equally silly, since the canon can simply make up a fantasy response.

That being said, the new walker is okay... but I would have rather it been on a big skimmer tank, like a taller, beefier hammerhead.

The particulars of this change aside; this line of argument really irritates me. There is a substantial distinction between realism and internal consistency. Good fiction does not need to be strictly realistic, particularly sci-fi/sci-fantasy, but if the fiction contains a device that works a certain way or a faction that holds to a certain philosophy or style etc, the author doesn't get to use "lulz fantasy dawg" as an excuse to suddenly have the device work completely differently or the faction to change their behaviour due to reasons entirely outwith the narrative and setting(such as "Damn, I've written myself into a corner here, rather than rewrite the last two chapters I'll just deploy the power of FANTASY! and chuck in an implausible deus ex machina that completely contradicts my earlier narrative! Boom, deadline hit!" or "I really, really want to sell lots of big expensive Weeb-bait walkers, but the established background doesn't support that - but, with the power of FANTASY! I can just completely ignore the stuff I already wrote, Huzzah! Money plox").

You can write fiction that is as ridiculously implausible as you like relative to reality, but if you want it to be good fiction you have to write it with consistency.

 Fireball wrote:
I just read that Perturabo was Edgar Skomorowski's last work and he will leave FW ... that will delay the Primarch output again.

Really? Well, gak. Shame really, he created the Solar Auxilia range as well.

Alabaster.clown wrote:

Are those Void Shields on the top of the Mastodon?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Mastodon:

Spoiler:

The Warlord Titan has similar nodules.

Spoiler:

Anyone ever thought that the reason the Tau are getting a Titan is because of the need or the players for more ease of use?

Super Heavy fliers are not easy to move about on the battlefield or transport. Really, they should only be seen in apocalypse games where other such huge things are moping about on the board.

A walker is easier to utilise on the field. Yeah they could have gone with a super heavy hover tank, but maybe they want to leave them with just the Eldar, and again maybe they weren't practical for the user on the table top.