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.

Just thinking, although ww1 and some ww2 (for the B1) the design is in itself "bad" because it was early designs that needed tweaking with further experience, you could still excuse that it works in 40k because of the new materials used in the 41st millenium and the machine spirits.

Although you know what I'd really like to see? Artworks and descriptions of the inner turret and chassis, of the firing controls (conduite de tir someone?) and all that practical stuff... That's just curiosity but that'd be great

Blastaar wrote:But any setting needs believability. Marine organs and techpriests "make sense" within the context of 40k. The Kart, Repulsive, and the like don't.

How don't they?

Brick covered in guns, which flies by punching the ground so hard it turns to glass? Sounds very Space Marine-y to me.

Fast moving open topped support "vehicle" with exposed pilots and impractical design? Am I talking about the Proteus Land Speeder or the ATV?

Nah, these things fit into the design and context perfectly for my tastes.

Of any faction, marines make the most sense for exposed crew. The crew are as well armoured as a tank already. Why waste weight and materials providing more armour on vehicles that should be relying on speed rather than armour.

I always liked the original land speeder design for that reason.

 Flinty wrote:
Of any faction, marines make the most sense for exposed crew. The crew are as well armoured as a tank already. Why waste weight and materials providing more armour on vehicles that should be relying on speed rather than armour.

Eh. This has been a ridiculous area for a long time, ever since they decided power armor meant 'open topped' vehicles magically weren't open topped.
Shots to the control panel/steering/axel/engine (and the kart has vents to either side of the driver that would have to go directly into the engine) are just as bad as shots to the pilot.
Not armoring the vulnerable areas and linkages on the vehicle is just stupid. Even civilian vehicles try to shield those areas from casual damage from debris.

Voss wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Of any faction, marines make the most sense for exposed crew. The crew are as well armoured as a tank already. Why waste weight and materials providing more armour on vehicles that should be relying on speed rather than armour.

Eh. This has been a ridiculous area for a long time, ever since they decided power armor meant 'open topped' vehicles magically weren't open topped.
Shots to the control panel/steering/axel/engine (and the kart has vents to either side of the driver that would have to go directly into the engine) are just as bad as shots to the pilot.
Not armoring the vulnerable areas and linkages on the vehicle is just stupid. Even civilian vehicles try to shield those areas from casual damage from debris.

That would mean helicopters are stupid, wouldn't it? The Land Speeder is a light, fast, reconnaissance and attack craft.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Of any faction, marines make the most sense for exposed crew. The crew are as well armoured as a tank already. Why waste weight and materials providing more armour on vehicles that should be relying on speed rather than armour.

Eh. This has been a ridiculous area for a long time, ever since they decided power armor meant 'open topped' vehicles magically weren't open topped.
Shots to the control panel/steering/axel/engine (and the kart has vents to either side of the driver that would have to go directly into the engine) are just as bad as shots to the pilot.
Not armoring the vulnerable areas and linkages on the vehicle is just stupid. Even civilian vehicles try to shield those areas from casual damage from debris.

That would mean helicopters are stupid, wouldn't it? The Land Speeder is a light, fast, reconnaissance and attack craft.

The difference being you don't send helicopters head on into enemy formations and expect them to absorb AT rounds. The unarmored or weak areas generally aren't exposed to enemy ground fire, which isn't true of the bizarre Space Marine 'attack craft.'

The uses to which land speeders are put in game by players do not gel well in my mind with decent doctrinal usage of the platform. It's a fancy space magic helicopter. If you want it to survive as a light armoured mobile skirmishing platform, then it would lurk behind cover all of the time and only ever be used with the HB and missile launcher armament... oh, like a modern gunship. If you want a flying brick to take lots of punishment in the teeth of enemy fire then you need a storm raven or thunder hawk that can actually take some punishment. If you put enough armour on a land speeder so that it can take some punishment, then you don't have a land speeder any more, you have a storm raven... or maybe the storm talon.

Flamer armament makes sense only so far as it could be used for taking out guardsmen or beasties with no ranged weapon that could be roasted from out of their reach, while the classic multi melta armament only makes sense as an ambush or assassination tool, where noone really expects the thing to come back.

It's not so much that there isn't a correct role for the land speeder, it's more that the role does not get well represented in the kinds of conflict that the game is meant to represent.

This is the land speeder



And if you send that into a straight up fire fight it will not go well...

 Flinty wrote:
Of any faction, marines make the most sense for exposed crew. The crew are as well armoured as a tank already. Why waste weight and materials providing more armour on vehicles that should be relying on speed rather than armour.

I always liked the original land speeder design for that reason.

I mean, the Imperial Army had the same speeder design carrying Guardsmen as crew, if we're talking the RT design...

Hah. I'd forgotten that

Yeah, they were pretty doomed weren't they while I think it works for marines, normal guardsmen would get pretty creamed in any situation.

With a plasma cannon as well. "So you want us to sit on stools... with jet engines attached... armed with the most unstable weaponry known to the Imperium... and then fly straight at the big nasty gribblies?

"Yes... yes we do. Or else you can just go stand against that wall and we will find some more 'volunteers' for this honourable duty"

"Where are the keys?"

However in also recall that in Epic, you could specifically buy land speeders to act as a light spotter for your titans. That's their true role.

40K makes little sense and that’s why it’s enjoyable. 40K is essentially a napoleonic wargame cosplaying as a sci-fi shooter. Marines crewing vehicles makes sense in Horus Heresy times but in current 40K it’s an extreme waste of man power.

The ATV only makes sense as a light screening vehicle in a convoy. In game I’m guessing it’s intended to be used as a gokart zipping around formations blasting enemies when they pop up but in any realistic (ie not 40K) it would be obliterated when it moves anywhere close to an enemy position.

It's a heavy support platform for bikes. it's based on two bike chassis' merged togther, and packs heavy a heavy anti infantry weapon or a heavy anti armor weapon. I imagine they'd be used in lore riding with bike squads to provide some heavy firepower for outriders

Voss wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Of any faction, marines make the most sense for exposed crew. The crew are as well armoured as a tank already. Why waste weight and materials providing more armour on vehicles that should be relying on speed rather than armour.

Eh. This has been a ridiculous area for a long time, ever since they decided power armor meant 'open topped' vehicles magically weren't open topped.
Shots to the control panel/steering/axel/engine (and the kart has vents to either side of the driver that would have to go directly into the engine) are just as bad as shots to the pilot.
Not armoring the vulnerable areas and linkages on the vehicle is just stupid. Even civilian vehicles try to shield those areas from casual damage from debris.

That would mean helicopters are stupid, wouldn't it? The Land Speeder is a light, fast, reconnaissance and attack craft.

The difference being you don't send helicopters head on into enemy formations and expect them to absorb AT rounds. The unarmored or weak areas generally aren't exposed to enemy ground fire, which isn't true of the bizarre Space Marine 'attack craft.'

I don't send Land Speeders head on into the enemy expecting them to absorb AT rounds either. Not sure you're making a compelling argument there. The whole point of the thing is to be in and out before the enemy can bring heavy weapons to bear, or strike from a vantage point that provides protection.

Has this gem been posted yet?

 vipoid wrote:
Has this gem been posted yet?

Spoiler:

Lol. Well played.

 vipoid wrote:
Has this gem been posted yet?

Spoiler:

That's glorious.

It gets better

Whoever thought building a Switch into the controls was a good idea should probably not be designing vehicles any time soon...

Definitely a unique set up for a game of Mario Kart Double Dash - and both Mario and Luigi seem to have had their Super Mushroom this morning!