Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs

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.

**CapRichard**

Insectum7 wrote:
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.

So you like the land raider because it's sillier. More cartoonist some would say

**Ishagu**

Not exactly the same, but they are tracked vehicles with sponson weapons. The Landraider looks like it could be related to Chimeras/Leman Russ tanks.

The hovering, more high tech look of the Primaris vehicles sets them apart from from the rest of the Imperium whilst keeping the hard, blocky aesthetic.

And they don't impose on the FW Custodes tanks - those are sleek and elegant, even more far removed from the more mundane stuff.

**Insectum7**

Goofy concept executed seriously is greater than half-baked concept executed clumsily. The Land Raider nails it. The Repulsor misses it.

**robbienw**

The Land Raider and Russ are nothing like each other stylistically. The primaris tanks are stylistically very similar to the Land Raider and Rhino, with the only difference being grav plates and stubbers.

The supposedly 'more hi-tech' look of the repulsor plates is balanced out by the distinctly low tech looking stubbers

**Ishagu**

Yeah. The stubbers are a testament to GW not breaking away from the theme of the setting. Primaris are true to the spirit of 40k.

**Karol**

Ishagu wrote:
Not exactly the same, but they are tracked vehicles with sponson weapons. The Landraider looks like it could be related to Chimeras/Leman Russ tanks.

besides the fact that they are both tracked and kind of a square in shape there really isn't much in common between those two. Even the truck and suspension is different. They are kind of a the same, the same an euro fighter and an A-10 are identical.

Yeah. The stubbers are a testament to GW not breaking away from the theme of the setting. Primaris are true to the spirit of 40k.

Wasn't it done to avoid rules overlap and to so that 3ed party parts couldn't be easily used on the ugly primaris vehicles to fix their looks though?

**Ishagu**

Lol who knows.

I'm not convinced that's the main reason.

And yes, Astra Militarum and Astartes vehicles are similar in the way that they look like grossly outdated tanks with impractical sponson weapons. I'm not saying they literally look exactly the same in terms of shape.

The Repulsors are a more modern designed (whilst related to the classic Astartes vehicles), grav tanks with functional turret weapons.

**bullyboy**

Quite simply, the older Imperium tanks lend their aestheitcs from early tanks...the Mk IV in case for the Land Raider and probably the Char B1 for the Leman Russ. There is no modern aesthetic there, and it works.

the new Repulsor series is such a leap in design that it doesn't feel that it belongs with the same models. They certainly do not look anything like Abrams or Challengers, but more akin to modern IFVs (if you forget about the goofy grav plates which makes me dislike the vehicle). Along with the new "tacticool" phobos guys, the design leap seems like we should be playing Warhammer 50K, not 40k.

**Ishagu**

Are you saying you don't want anything new and everything has to use the same old chassis or armour types?

**Karol**

Ishagu wrote:
Lol who knows.

I'm not convinced that's the main reason.

And yes, Astra Militarum and Astartes vehicles are similar in the way that they look like grossly outdated tanks with impractical sponson weapons. I'm not saying they literally look exactly the same in terms of shape.

The Repulsors are a more modern designed (whilst related to the classic Astartes vehicles), grav tanks with functional turret weapons.

And having two assymetrical guns inside the same turret is practical? or having a long barrled gun with a rocket launcher on top it is a good idea? Soviet did that for their APC, when the things actually got to be used they had problems with them either warping the gun barrel, blowing up when damaged or forcing soldiers to do a sapers work if it missfired and did not launch but stay primed.

Something like a land raider, is at least a design that worked in trench warfare.

**bullyboy**

Ishagu wrote:
Are you saying you don't want anything new and everything has to use the same old chassis or armour types?

Nothing was implied in my response (if that is aimed at me), but if you're asking, I don't mind new as long as it stays within the design elements of the former. I actually like the new infantry, but I detest the new vehicles simply from an aesthetic point of view. Give me a Land Raider over a Repulsor any day.

**Karol**

bullyboy wrote:
Quite simply, the older Imperium tanks lend their aestheitcs from early tanks...the Mk IV in case for the Land Raider and probably the Char B1 for the Leman Russ. There is no modern aesthetic there, and it works.

the new Repulsor series is such a leap in design that it doesn't feel that it belongs with the same models. They certainly do not look anything like Abrams or Challengers, but more akin to modern IFVs (if you forget about the goofy grav plates which makes me dislike the vehicle). Along with the new "tacticool" phobos guys, the design leap seems like we should be playing Warhammer 50K, not 40k.

Isn't a Lemman Russ just a Grant with the guns swamped, so the main one is in the turret and not in the body?

**Ishagu**

I think the new stuff is perfectly in keeping with the old themes whilst modernising the units.

Everything is still clearly a Warhammer Astartes model. End of

If you love Landraiders you can still buy a myriad of version from GW and FW. They aren't going anywhere.

**robbienw**

What grossly outdated tanks are you saying the Land Raider looks like then?

Lets have some pictoral examples

Lets also bear in mind the Repulsor looks similar to a Land Raider

**Ishagu**

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d0/42/2fd04211eafbefcf1e21b0aa4ba8ee88.jpg

**robbienw**

That looks nothing like a Land Raider

The only similarities are no large turret gun and similar positioning of vastly different looking side weapons.

It doesn't have the smooth layered armour of the Raider, no top mounted weapon emplacement, no doors at the front or the side, no optics, and the raider is blockier with more angled tracks, that are covered at the top.

So in summary the Land Raider has a similar layout, but is otherwise nothing like that tank. Saying it looks like it is a stretch.

I can see the similarities with IG vehicles of course, due to the riveting and sponson design.

**Kaiyanwang**

Ishagu wrote:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d0/42/2fd04211eafbefcf1e21b0aa4ba8ee88.jpg

To be honest, this explains a lot.
If you are comparing that to a LR, it's absolutely and completely pointless to discuss the subtlety of the design choices for the Primaris, and the changes in execution and fluff that they result into.

**Agamemnon2**

Ah yes, the old "You are too stupid to talk to" argument. Classic. Ten points to Gryffindor!

**Slayer-Fan123**

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.

Spoiler:

Just because there's enough to move, doesn't mean it'll move without toppling. This is why the new Dreads and Contemptors are superior to the silly washing machine Dreads. Helbrutes aren't much better but they've got enough organic bitz to be more believable in movement.

**Kaiyanwang**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Ah yes, the old "You are too stupid to talk to" argument. Classic. Ten points to Gryffindor!

In no way I implied he is stupid. If this is what you read from my post, it's on you.
The only implication is a lack of subtlety in recognizing shapes for vehicles. The rest it's you being unable to come up with an actual answer.

**Andykp**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/d0/42/2fd04211eafbefcf1e21b0aa4ba8ee88.jpg

To be honest, this explains a lot.
If you are comparing that to a LR, it's absolutely and completely pointless to discuss the subtlety of the design choices for the Primaris, and the changes in execution and fluff that they result into.

It’s a nice conversation where people are trying to explain why they like something or dislike something with out claiming that their taste is the only one that has any bearing on good design then you wade in again with this tripe. Not really helpful and again you are assuming a hell of a lot here. From what I’ve heard from you so far is that all you only notice subtlety of design when it supports your arguments, any other features are ignored otherwise.

**Kaiyanwang**

That's not a land raider ladies and gentlemen.
Not beyond "turret-less tank". In case, on the side that are elements that can recall the Russ.
There is no way around it, not matter how much you gnash your teeth.

**Ishagu**

Are you expecting to see a real world vehicle that looks exactly like a Landraider? Iol

You won't, because a Landraider has no ground clearance and literally can't function.

**Apple fox**

Honestly a great design change for the land raider would probably be to lose the side weapons.
Turn it into a assault transport with the single heavy weapon, high capacity and some interesting options for on top.
More ways for marines to get out and support for that as well as a good drop in points. It also fits with tank design for extreme unknowns in environment. Without a turret or side weapons.
With the smaller predator tank taking up its heavy weapon slack, and the rhino for smaller and less close quarters marine units. It would look quite good I feel like that on the table.

I also think they need to get that ground clearance up, it’s a major wtf in its design :(

**robbienw**

Ishagu wrote:
Are you expecting to see a real world vehicle that looks exactly like a Landraider? Iol

You won't, because a Landraider has no ground clearance and literally can't function.

That’s not what we were discussing though, don’t try to divert the point. You said a Land Raider looks like that WW1 tank; it looks nothing like it, thus your assertion that space marine vehicles look like ‘grossly outdated’ tanks is wrong.

**Ishagu**

Except it does look like a WW1 tank

It has side sponson weapons, tracks that go around the body, no top turret. Lots of WW1 design elements. This isn't some grand revelation lol

**Andykp**

From its original design as a scratch built tank featured in the rogue trader book the land raider has drawn its inspiration from WW1 early tanks. But futuristic in space. No one is saying that that is a land raider, but it is related in the same way a space marine is to the classic image of a medieval knight. They aren’t the same but have provide inspiration for them. That “subtlety” appears to be lost on you.

**robbienw**

It looks nothing like it, other than a few basic layout similarities as I was saying above.

Using your line of reasoning we could say the repulsor looks like the Land Raider, therefore it also looks like a WW1 tank. Just with some rectangles on poles instead of tracks, and some .50 cals strapped on

**Crimson**

Land Raider certainly resembles that WWI tank. It has the same basic layout. However it has a distinct angular scifi aesthetic on top of that. Repulsor has that same aesthetic applied to more modern tank layout. And of course IG tanks are based on WWI tanks too, and in addition of the mere layout retain a lot of the detail from those designs. So both the people who say the old marine tanks resemble the IG tanks and the people who say the primaris grav tanks resemble the old marine tanks are correct, they're just comparing different aspects of the designs.

**Cronch**

Primaris marines design is fine, it's essentially Space marines, but with anime bits and bobs glued on. The Primaris jet-engine-tanks meanwhile look like something straight out of MASK or GI JOE. They suffer the same issue that any of the large 40k kits do, they cross the line from scale-model to tonka toy look imo.