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.

 Cothonian wrote:

Especially the "what if we bolted this onto that?" As absurd as it may sound, a lot of the Primaris equipment looks a lot more cartoonish compared to it's predecessors. To me at least, the old Landraiders looks sleek and mean compared to the new Repulsors. Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.

Lastly, I kind of miss the far more gothic feel of the old marines designs. The old marines look like they have 10,000 years of pointless rituals stacked upon procedures who's purpose has been long lost to time (which they do.) The primaris lose all of that. Granted, it's more tactically efficient (since when would having a purity seal flapping around in your face help the situation?), but it lacks the esoteric feel of 40k.

Primaris look more cartoonish!?! That is certainly a new one.

The land raider has no suspension or clearance and sponsons are some of the worst places you could actually stick anti-armor weapons since you have to expose at least half you hull to shoot or be in an urban-type environment to shoot around corners which enemy armor is one of your least concerns unless you have very good infantry support (which probably should be tackling that enemy armor anyways since dense urban areas usually mean bad times for armor.

I can sort of agree with repulsors having too many weapons. Well, one too many weapons. WWII and beyond tanks often have a main gun, co-axial gun, hull mounted gun, pintle mounted gun. I don't think it is too far a stretch to include some anti-infantry assault weapons like the munition boxes and side/rear guns. The only one that doesn't really work for me is the rear anti-air weapon which less that it is a bad idea and more that it is a little dinky to really pose a threat to supersonic aircraft and you already have the pintle for close attack aircraft.

I find it strange, to the point it feels almost disingenuous, that you call the repulsor cartoonish while thinking almost any aspect of the land raider makes any kind of more sense. I like both models somewhat (I don't really like much of any 40k vehicle to be honest). However, both are pretty ridiculous in their own ways. Thing that probably bothers me the most about the repulsor is the fact there is not nearly enough space dedicated to an engine. I mean the land raider has that issue too but at least it tried to cordon off a little space to show that is where the engine is.

Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.

... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!


really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.

also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.

BrianDavion wrote:

Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.

... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!


really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.

also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.

The Land Raider has more of a basis in reality and is more 'familiar' compared to the repulsor. Is what I think he means. I mean there was a tank in our reality the land raider is based on, the world war 1 tanks.

But the problem is that no tank in our reality has that many stupid stuff on it. It is usually one main gun, and if you have more its on top of the turret. And then we have what nine weapons on repulsor? On the repulsor executioner 11 weapons?

We are at the point of ridiculousness the vehicle looks overburdened with weapon systems. I am sorry its not realistic, its no 'cool' it looks like an ork vehicle in space marine form. Its dumb and unnecessary. All they have to do is invent something and put sponsons on it to fit the 40k universe, no sponsons creates this effect of "what why?" Yes it makes sense in our world but not in 40k its far too modern, but then its not. Its rally wierd dichotomy that it has too many weapons, and it has the issue of being flat out mess of a model. There is too much going on.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Thing that probably bothers me the most about the repulsor is the fact there is not nearly enough space dedicated to an engine.

There is actually pretty decent blocks dedicated to the engines both sides at the aft section of the vehicle. And considering that it is a weird scifi anti-grav tank is is kinda hard to know how large engine it 'should' have.

 Crimson wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Thing that probably bothers me the most about the repulsor is the fact there is not nearly enough space dedicated to an engine.

There is actually pretty decent blocks dedicated to the engines both sides at the aft section of the vehicle. And considering that it is a weird scifi anti-grav tank is is kinda hard to know how large engine it 'should' have.

You are probably right, the compartments feel really small to me since I have seen a fair number of real tank engine compartments.

BrianDavion wrote:

Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.

... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!


really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.

also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.

It's not about the placement of weapons. It's about the execution of the placement of weapons. Imo the Land Raiders guns look like they belong on the vehicle. The Repulsor guns look more slapped on and less integrated with the aesthetics.

I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.

 Crimson wrote:
I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.

Another issue with primaris kits lack of customization!

 Crimson wrote:
I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.

Agreed.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I wish the rules alowed you to not take the various grenade boxes on Repulsors. There literally is a pic on GW site of an Executioner without them, yet rules say it is not a valid loadout.

Another issue with primaris kits lack of customization!

That’s a rules problem not kit one. The kits have tons of customisation opportunities. The rules don’t. I play in a very chilled group so not too much of an issue, model it and it good to go.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Whereas the Landraider's weapons look well positioned and integral to the design, the Repulsor has them pasted literally all over it.

... Sponson weapons look well postioned? really?!


really the repuslros weapons aren't that bad. you have a anti-infantry gun covering each door infantry exit by. a forward mounted weapon that can eaither be a heavy anti-infntry gun or a solid anti-tank punch. and a turret mounted main gun. even the auto-launchers/frag storm grenade launchers on the turret make a degree of sense in that they are mounted on the turret and set to fire high so that the infantry can be covered with smoke or enemy infantry can be supressed. there's a lot of guns on it but there's logic to it's design. aty the very least it puts it's main gun in a turret rather then sponson mounts.

also having a repulsor sitting beside a land raider. it's hard to argue one is sleeker then the other.

It's not about the placement of weapons. It's about the execution of the placement of weapons. Imo the Land Raiders guns look like they belong on the vehicle. The Repulsor guns look more slapped on and less integrated with the aesthetics.

except for the most part you're wrong, every weapon on the land raider looks slapped on.

the forward mounted twin heavy bolter? slapped on, thge sponson weapons. slapped on. all the weapons on the repulsor look pretty intergrated into the hull. I agree the frag launchers on the turret look stupid (I just went with autolaunchers as honestly I wanted to keep costs down anyway) but the rest of the weapons are all intergrated with the hull. they don't look like something that could have been added on after. unlike the land raider. (and the land raiders design that way makes sense TBH, it's not a fighting vehicle, it's an explorer vehicle whose STC was used to make a make shift tank)

@BrianDavion 100% disagree.

The Heavy Bolter is well integrated into the form, it's armored shell being flush with the hull.

I get what you're saying about the Sponsons, but their 'open' design does a great job of not interfering with the slab of the side armor, while looking functional, exotic and aggressive.

Imo the Repulsor is aptly named.

I never though I would actually read that the land raider frame + weapons makes sense.

What a wonderful place is the world.

It's like if Dwan of War doesn't exist. Just look at how silly many units move in that game and what changes to proportions they had to make just to have some of them do a locomotion cycle correctly, like the boxes dread. The land raider trying to move and shoot at stuff it's pretty amusing too.

CapRichard wrote:
I never though I would actually read that the land raider frame + weapons makes sense.

What a wonderful place is the world.

It's like if Dwan of War doesn't exist. Just look at how silly many units move in that game and what changes to proportions they had to make just to have some of them do a locomotion cycle correctly, like the boxes dread. The land raider trying to move and shoot at stuff it's pretty amusing too.

Animation in DOW is exaggerated for effect, the Dreads don't have to actually move in such an exaggerated way. As for the Land Raider, the ground bows and makes way for the glorious Astartes chariot.

No, the dev stated in an interview that they had to change its legs because the original design could not move in any fashion.

As for the land raider, yeah, seeing the laser beam actually curve to hit the target because the gun emplacement makes no sense when trying to hit something put in front of the it is exaggerated for effect. It just doesn't work as a weapon platform. Even when targeting just stuff at the sides it distributes power very inefficiently. It is a non combat vehicles with stuff bolted onto it.
The repulsor is an actual combat vehicle.

Come on.

I think we've reached the climax of nonsense in this topic with people claiming that Primaris are more cartoonish than units like the Landraider.

I often joke about a subset of people who simply dislike new things, turns out it's not a joke.

The classic Astartes are far more cartoonish (in a 1980s kind of way) than any of the Primaris designs. The most cartoonish thing you can point a finger at in the Primaris line would probably be the Skull helmets of the Reivers, but you can only criticise them if you don't know the lore of 40k. Terror troops with skull helmets are a long established part of the lore, heck the Reivers now have the same rules as Night Lords legionnaires.

So to summarise the comedy of this topic:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design. Oh wait.
It's actually pretty funny that the hover tanks of the Primaris could at least function in a scifi setting, despite being more fantastical by virtue of the grav tech they employ.

As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.

The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.

And it looks the nutz.

 Ishagu wrote:
I think we've reached the climax of nonsense in this topic with people claiming that Primaris are more cartoonish than units like the Landraider.

I often joke about a subset of people who simply dislike new things, turns out it's not a joke.

The classic Astartes are far more cartoonish (in a 1980s kind of way) than any of the Primaris designs. The most cartoonish thing you can point a finger at in the Primaris line would probably be the Skull helmets of the Reivers, but you can only criticise them if you don't know the lore of 40k. Terror troops with skull helmets are a long established part of the lore, heck the Reivers now have the same rules as Night Lords legionnaires.

So to summarise the comedy of this topic:
Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design. Oh wait.
It's actually pretty funny that the hover tanks of the Primaris could at least function in a scifi setting, despite being more fantastical by virtue of the grav tech they employ.

Lets get real here. If we could army our soldiers in armor that can deflect .50 rounds and give them a jump pack with a 40 MM autocannon...we would. We wouldn't however drive around in giant tanks without suspension or go around trying to hit people with hammers. ESP when the average marine can probably flip over a car with their own strength. IMO - the primaris designs look a lot better than the secondis stuff. Heck their was even a huge movement to make truescale marines in the past and now...here you have it? Bunches of people complain. The new warsuit - just built it. It looks friggen awesome.

 Ishagu wrote:

Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.

Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.

 Insectum7 wrote:
As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.

The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.

And it looks the nutz.

Love LR but sponsons are archiec tech that didn't even make it past the first 10 years of tank design. Turrets just make a lot more sense. It's part of the reason I like the new primaris tanks - they emulate real life tanks - they just hover. Which is cool.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.

Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.

Just take a look at an abarms or challanger tank. It looks a lot like a repulsor executioner. These are some of the most astetically pleasing tanks to look at IMO. Not liking something because it has "too many guns" is also pretty lame. The only thing I think is unreasonable with the new primaris designs is the new dreads roll cage...I am going to modify a glass canopy for mine out of plasticard. It looks amazing still though. It just doesn't make sense.

I will actually agree that the new Walker is not my favourite looking Astartes model.

I have seen it in person and it does look nicer than the images, sometimes the kits are more pleasing in person when you see them as an actual 3D model, but it doesn't look as good as the Redemptor.

The Repulsor Executioner is probably the best looking Astartes tank after the various Sicarans, but it's more functional in it's design by a long shot.

the repulsor looks an aweful lot like a Bradley IFV (to the poiint where I'd say that was the obvious inspiration for the design) the weapons are mostly sensably placed within the hull, with only the autolaunchers/autofrag launchers on the turret standing out as unnesscary. the stormbolters/frag launchers on the ides and rear makes 100% perfect sense as a weapon designed to cover infantry as it disembarks. the forward hull mounted twin heavy bolter or twin als canon allows it to put down heavy fire in front of it. and the turret mounted canon is ideal for killing infantry or light armor thats in it's way. you're welcome to dislike the repulsor, that it looks more modern then WW1/early 20s is a fair argument against it.but the rhino and it's relations are also much more modern looking then the land raider as well. but claiming the land raiders design makes more sense then the repulsor's is just silly

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As an animator I don't believe the Dev There's enough implied articulation in the hips that I think it's possible.

The Land Raider can shoot enough in front of itself for me to give it a pass. Neither the tabletop or DOW are showing the real scale of combat, so "straight ahead" the model geometry doesn't interfere as much. The amount of physical modification required would be minimal. Or the Land Raider could alternate firing Lascannons while advancing in a very shallow 'serpentine' path.

And it looks the nutz.

Love LR but sponsons are archiec tech that didn't even make it past the first 10 years of tank design. Turrets just make a lot more sense. It's part of the reason I like the new primaris tanks - they emulate real life tanks - they just hover. Which is cool.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

Primaris bad. Old Marines good. Landraiders are the epitome of great rank design.

Nobody is saying that the Land Raider is a great tank design, engineering wise. People are saying it looks more well designed, aesthetically.

Just take a look at an abarms or challanger tank. It looks a lot like a repulsor executioner. These are some of the most astetically pleasing tanks to look at IMO. Not liking something because it has "too many guns" is also pretty lame. The only thing I think is unreasonable with the new primaris designs is the new dreads roll cage...I am going to modify a glass canopy for mine out of plasticard. It looks amazing still though. It just doesn't make sense.

Right. I looked at the Repulsor and saw a floating Bradley that looks like a toy.

I get that the Repulsor has design elements of tanks that make sense. It just looks goofy, and not in a good way. Like a bobblehead Bradley. A caricature.

I don't like the Land Raider because it 'makes sense'. I like the Land Raider because it 'makes 40K sense.' It has a big door in the front, and looks like it's intended to ram into buildings and deposit marines. It looks great in some Blanchian illustration where it doesn't matter if it has trouble focusing it's firepower, because there are targets everywhere. It has weapons that DON'T look like real guns, while the Stubbers and Gatling Cannon look like 50Cals and a GAU 8, and the Executioner gun looks like a 120mm smoothbore.

I'll stick with my space-paneled WW1 battering ram with lasers.

Well as I stated previously the Replusor turret is great. The Repulsor Exterminator top turret needs to be like three times the size sorta like an abrams tank or else it just looks small in comparision sorta like how a predator annihilator has a large turret on the chasis which makes it look great.



Infact of all the space marine tanks the rhino chasis and the predator are probably the coolest looking tanks, they are small and thats their biggest issue.

But people on here keep saying : "Oh its old technology!"

In 40k its not every major battle tanks has one in the imperium except for the primaris stuff. Fellblades, baneblades etc are all main battleline tanks and they all have it.

If anything the predator tank should be twice the size it is. inbetween a land raider and a rhino. But right now its really small.

^ I think if you measured it out you'd find that a Predator is actually quite big. As big as any modern MBT, in fact. Our brains have gotten used to the scale and exaggerated proportions of 40K that we don't really see it though. The height of the hull of a Abrams is not even 6 feet, and it's turret is about 8 feet. A Predator is about 14 feet high at it's turret if you look at a Space Marine next to it.

Land Raiders and the like are stupid-big. A Monolith is like a 5 story building floating around.

Arguing more or less silly I think is a fools errand. Most 40k stuff looks a bit daft if we're being honest with ourselves.

It's more or less picking the crazy we like and sticking with it.

Dark Eldar have jabbas sail barges for emperors sake. If it is supposed to make sense in the fluff or not, much of it is silly. The lack of suspension on imperial vehicles can be a bit odd at times to be sure. ( ala leman russ tanks of all kinds ).

I do go with the idea of the predator being one of the best looking tanks though. I mean auto cannon turret, with a pintle weapon and the right placement of smoke launchers using the auto cannon turret and that is about as close to a modern tank as we have in the game look wise.

Sponsons were always dated a look and I myself on starting thought " WTF " on looking at them. They are simply, imperial in nature however, more guns, better for us. Some things we just need to take as setting rule of cool.

Auto cannon predator though, best tank look, and it honestly makes the land raider and repulsor both look cartoony though they are all based off real world designs.

I'll give honorable mention for the core Rhino, and Chimera as the runners up both being near direct ports of real tanks, transport tanks that are still in service today.

I actually think the best visual change to come out of Primaris is the seperation between their vehicles and those of the Imperial Guard.

I'm OK with sponsons on Guard vehicles. The whole army is a satire on WW1 trench and tank warfare in terms of theme and it does fit.
It didn't fit as well with Astartes, however. Now we have a more distinct look to the forces - one more themed to Science Fiction, the other a throwback to older methods of war.

I think there's room for both, I like the new primaris stuff but I'd HATE to see the Land Raider and the rhino chassi tanks go away

SM vehicles are massively separate in look from Guard vehicles, making them float doesn't really make much difference.

 Ishagu wrote:
I actually think the best visual change to come out of Primaris is the seperation between their vehicles and those of the Imperial Guard.

I'm OK with sponsons on Guard vehicles. The whole army is a satire on WW1 trench and tank warfare in terms of theme and it does fit.
It didn't fit as well with Astartes, however. Now we have a more distinct look to the forces - one more themed to Science Fiction, the other a throwback to older methods of war.

But non of the space marines vehicles look like anything from WWI, besides the land raider. Predators look like Panzer IIIs Fs for examples, and rhinos themselfs look like a ton of post WWII transport produced by NATO.