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'm amused by the idea of multiple engines in separate sections for easier stealing (and better disaster crashes).
As a design compromise it's a sensible idea, though. The alternative (remembering that this thing is supposed to be a train, not just a truck) is to have a massive, powerful truck on the front to pull however many containers make up a full train. Putting engines on each carriage means the lead unit doesn't need to be any more powerful than the rest, which is easier model-design wise (as it lets them make a relatively more compact truck model), and also makes some amount of in-universe sense given the potential speed benefit and inherent redundancy - engine troubles in the truck or any other single section of the train don't leave the whole thing stranded in a toxic desert.
It's certainly clunky, but is my favourite piece of 40K vehicle design in some time. Certainly better than any of the crop of Primaris vehicles. Like the GSC vehicles, it captures the absurd coolness of 40K tech perfectly, for me.
I largely agree (especially about the feel). The trouble with it is there isn't any way to move cargo to a different chassis if something goes wrong, and coordinating the different engines to the same speed and correct turning radius simultaneously is a pretty big ask, especially for how 'low tech' they look (and the terrain they have to deal with).
Honestly for a 'train' it honestly doesn't have the look or feel of one (though that may be a cultural thing?). Its just a truck with cargo beds that almost absolutely will fail to stay linked.
There's room here (on the blighted ash wastes of necromunda) to poke a lot of fun at the destruction of the American rail industry for individual cargo trucks, and it feels like a missed opportunity that they didn't go full satire in a Car Wars/Dark Future/RoadWar Europa sort of way.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/04/12 23:46:45
Well, the Munitorum Armoured Containers kit that forms the cargo are already 60$, so with the sprues necesary to make up the truck parts, it might push the price to around 150$, or even 170$, given that a mid-size tank costs between 80 and over a 100$ nowadays.
"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado
But as noted even the standard lorry, without its trailer, can look front heavy. Or at least if it doesn't then its showing off that the wheel base is much heavier by design than the light cabin up front.
Spoiler:
Even though its an armoured design you can bet the lower part is heavily armoured like the cabin too. And as noted the military designs and off-road ones often have a cabin that is more forward of the front wheels.
The important thing is that at least one continent still uses the overall shape of the original Optimus Prime. That's my optimistic take away from this topic!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/13 02:05:59
I'm amused by the idea of multiple engines in separate sections for easier stealing (and better disaster crashes).
As a design compromise it's a sensible idea, though. The alternative (remembering that this thing is supposed to be a train, not just a truck) is to have a massive, powerful truck on the front to pull however many containers make up a full train. Putting engines on each carriage means the lead unit doesn't need to be any more powerful than the rest, which is easier model-design wise (as it lets them make a relatively more compact truck model), and also makes some amount of in-universe sense given the potential speed benefit and inherent redundancy - engine troubles in the truck or any other single section of the train don't leave the whole thing stranded in a toxic desert.
It's certainly clunky, but is my favourite piece of 40K vehicle design in some time. Certainly better than any of the crop of Primaris vehicles. Like the GSC vehicles, it captures the absurd coolness of 40K tech perfectly, for me.
I largely agree (especially about the feel). The trouble with it is there isn't any way to move cargo to a different chassis if something goes wrong, and coordinating the different engines to the same speed and correct turning radius simultaneously is a pretty big ask, especially for how 'low tech' they look (and the terrain they have to deal with).
Honestly for a 'train' it honestly doesn't have the look or feel of one (though that may be a cultural thing?). Its just a truck with cargo beds that almost absolutely will fail to stay linked.
There's room here (on the blighted ash wastes of necromunda) to poke a lot of fun at the destruction of the American rail industry for individual cargo trucks, and it feels like a missed opportunity that they didn't go full satire in a Car Wars/Dark Future/RoadWar Europa sort of way.
An engine per unit is extremely common in rail trains (diesel multiple units and electric multiple units rely on the principle). DMUs are common on the UK railway network, so probably form some of the inspiration.
I don't think road trains use that system though. However, if you can mechanically link brakes between sections, it shouldn't be too hard to mechanically link the accelerator and clutch, electrical linkages should be even easier.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
I was expecting a tanker or something more...with more effort put in it. These containers are 200% lazy design. I mean, plastic ork trukks look better than this. Not to mention Halftrakks and other vehicles from FW.
Wiz Warrior wrote: Sorry, but i think this would look more convincing if i built it from spare sprues than to spend undoubtedly a lot of money for a very poor rendition of a trailer/truck kit designed by toddlers.
I might be interested to take that wager. Name the stakes.
The cyclinder revolver style for the Grenade launcher turret is a pretty awful idea. The cyclinder was placed too far and had to turn sideway to reload.
Goliath have infantry carry 2 Belt-fed grenade launchers, even single shell/mag top loader are better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/13 09:57:28
A quick note on scale, the correct scale for 28mm is around 1/48ish. And there is some stuff in that scale.
However it always looks a bit small, partly because there are so few ordinary sized humans in the game, partly because everyone is waving around huge cricket bats and screaming.
1/35 is a bit big (for the gun truck you'll either have to lower the walls or install platforms for models to stand on) but works if a vehicle is supposed to be large and imposing.
GW vehicles tend to be wider than real world ones (which have to fit on roads, tunnels and bridges) and can sometimes look a bit too skinny in a GW game.
I'd also note we have this thread if anyone is looking for alternate ideas.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: A quick note on scale, the correct scale for 28mm is around 1/48ish. And there is some stuff in that scale.
However it always looks a bit small, partly because there are so few ordinary sized humans in the game, partly because everyone is wave around huge cricket bats and screaming.
...
Damn you! I almost choked!
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
I have done a lot of testing and comparision in the past and neither 1/48 nor 1/35 really fits as 40k is out of scale or better said does not have one
the right size for 28mm would be 1/56,1/60, which is way too small for 40k most vehicles are 1/48 while weapons are 1/35 in size (the 1/35 150mm ammunition fits perfect for a Basilisk)
so 1/48 have the right length while 1/35 have the right width and weapons (for artillery at least, MGs are too small anyway) and it is much easier to shorten a vehicle that is too long (cut of the middle and done)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
kodos wrote: I have done a lot of testing and comparision in the past and neither 1/48 nor 1/35 really fits as 40k is out of scale or better said does not have one
the right size for 28mm would be 1/56,1/60, which is way too small for 40k most vehicles are 1/48 while weapons are 1/35 in size (the 1/35 150mm ammunition fits perfect for a Basilisk)
so 1/48 have the right length while 1/35 have the right width and weapons (for artillery at least, MGs are too small anyway) and it is much easier to shorten a vehicle that is too long (cut of the middle and done)
Well said. Generally when using real world vehicles I like 1/35 tanks and trucks (big stuff), 1/48 cars (small stuff) and 1/48 or even 1/72 aircraft and space craft (in order to fit on the board GW fliers are much smaller than they should be).
And replace real world weapons with GW-sized sewer pipe cannons and vacuum cleaner sized rifles.
But we're straying off topic, the thread on alternatives might be a better place for this.
Weird title given the bugs also only move on 4 legs and only have 4 legs highlighted in the images
They have those little leggies up front which I guess sort of counts..
Interesting article, frankly I want to see what else is going to be released in the future for the Ash Wastes expansions. Other gang vehicles must be on the way eventually.
Chopstick wrote: At 150US$+ might as well buy a toy truck, plasticard and make your own truck.
This brings up a valid point, that becomes more and more valid each time gw produces a boxed set for several hundred dollars.
And that point is not just DIY, but 3d printing. Not copying gws questionable sculpts, but just gettting a great unique design and printing it yourself.
Because good 4k+ resin printers are getting so cheap, that the cost of a single box sext is enough to make the prospect of such a thing give a consumer pause and take a hare consideration if dumping this kind of change on gw toys are worth it.
Im a fan of HIPS, but im beginning to see the light of no longer throwing money at GW for some stuff whose proposed value i am not falling for anymore.
GW need to be careful. They are starting to push their consumers out of their market, and into a market they have 0 influence in, and are actively fighting against. They arent going to win that fight. We have mp3's now, much to the chagrin of the RIAA, and now we have stl's.
I think id rather kitbash cars and trucks, as Miller ilkustrated in fury road, for half the price of what gw are going to charge for this kit.
GW need to be careful. They are starting to push their consumers out of their market, and into a market they have 0 influence in, and are actively fighting against. They arent going to win that fight. We have mp3's now, much to the chagrin of the RIAA, and now we have stl's.
I think id rather kitbash cars and trucks, as Miller ilkustrated in fury road, for half the price of what gw are going to charge for this kit.
Yeah see adeptus titanicus for proof of that, GW created a modular weapons and cards system where they in theory could sell you new weapons every so often, totally messed that up and acted like it was beneath them to even try and let 3rd party's eat their. Then out of spite for the 3rd party's making a killing they changed the deal in the rules when it came to future titan releases (warmaster iconoclast) just to mess with 3rd party bits makers.
I like the idea of the cargo 8 but we're going to see plenty of similar or derivative designs that won't require organ theft to own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/13 14:51:12
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
