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.

On the Warhammer Community there is a preview of the gladiator, the primaris version of the rhino and predator, although some load puts look a bit like a land raider.

What do you think? Cos I think it’s an ugly model personally. There are so many edges on these new vehicles and they stock paint job is vibrant edge highlighting. Too much for me.

The main problem I have with a large number of the current crop of vehicles is the huge amount of detail, guns, aerials, secondary tertiary and quaternary weapon systems, which results in the vehicles basically having no clear, instantly recognizable role you can tell by looking at them.

Eventually, they just become lumps bristling with guns and antennae.

I think the gladiator just looks like a Predator with more steps. The same basic shape is still there. If anything, the extra lines somewhat break of the shoeboxyness some. But I think all non-Forge World space marine vehicles look ugly. And they are in good company as I think most 40k vehicles are ugly. I am very much WWII and not WWI in my aesthetics taste.

As for weapons, I am fine with main gun, coaxial gun, pintle mounted and hull mounted on a tank. Anymore and it does seem excessive. Again WWII tastes.

I think the Gladiator and Storm Speeder does a much better job staying in a defined lane compared to the Repulsor based tanks. I think when I pick one up it will look fine in U.S. Olive Drab.

What a dull and derivative design. If you told me that this was just a Repulsor variant I would have believed you.

Space Marines have never had interesting tanks, but the Primaris' are especially egregious. What really sucks is that GW has made great gains with fleshing out their infantry aesthetic, but their rides just do not match.

I like the look of it. The rigid, flat surface aesthetic really works well here. I like to imagine that the machinery to properly produce curved panels has been lost to the ages and the minor amount of innovation required to reproduce such would be tech-heresy, thus Space Marine vehicles can only be built from flat panels.

You know how in the video game Spore the offensive power of a vehicle was determined by how many random gun bits you could stick to it?

I actually think the gladiator looks cool. The one on the bottom has a single main gun, a co-ax, and essentially vertical Tau gun drones. I can easily see that in a faux-future tank

Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?

It's no worse than imagining that the Imperium's flow chart to start a ground battle is:

Is the battlefield largely as flat as the Bonneville Salt Flats?
Yes: Deploy Lemon Russes, Rhinos, Predators and/or Land Raiders
No: Vehicle ground battle not feasible, tanks don't have enough clearance, begin exterminatus

Fortunately for the IoM most table tops just so happen to meet that criteria. Also, fortunately Primaris grav vehicles seem to be moving away from only rear and side arc-ed weapons. Hopefully.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?

It's no worse than imagining that the Imperium's flow chart to start a ground battle is:

Is the battlefield largely as flat as the Bonneville Salt Flats?
Yes: Deploy Lemon Russes, Rhinos, Predators and/or Land Raiders
No: Vehicle ground battle not feasible, tanks don't have enough clearance, begin exterminatus

Fortunately for the IoM most table tops just so happen to meet that criteria. Also, fortunately Primaris grav vehicles seem to be moving away from only rear and side arc-ed weapons. Hopefully.

Ok, good one.

But if you want a tank that can cover its side and rear arcs: they're called TURRETS.

And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".

You could play 30k with them.

I think all the Primaris vehicles are missing something. Plus the hover "treads" look dumb.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".

You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.

I really like the Gladiator with the laser destroyer, except it's terrible.

Like, one of my major complaints with 40k tanks is the number of them that just have more of a man portable heavy weapon for their main armament. Like, that's just stupid. Basically, with the exception of the Ontos, you don't see much in the way of tanks that have multiple mounted guns for AT work, because, in fact, there's no such thing as HP, basically no such thing as death of a thousand 1-damage hits, and it takes one destructive penetrating hit to destroy a tank and a 120mm gun with a depleted uranium subcaliber penetrator is way more effective at getting that one destructive penetrating hit than a battery of 6 recoilless rifles.


Also, I hate it when vehicles have more effective secondary weapons than turret weapons. Like, who designs these things, why is the turret mounted weapon less effective than the multimeltas mounted in little boxes hanging off the sides?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
But if you want a tank that can cover its side and rear arcs: they're called TURRETS.

Then you should love the Repulsor Executioner. It's got turrets on its turret, dawg.

But seriously, I think we both agree those turrets and the above the side hatch guns and rear mounted weapons on the repulsor frame are too much gun. Well for marines. It's not enough for Orks. Never enough for Orks.

I also want to keep moving toward the main gun being on a top mounted turret (being able to imagine a tank going hull down is important to me) and move away from side sponson weapons. Like I said, I don't care for WWI aesthetics. At very least move away from powerful, long range side sponson weapons. I am okay with bolters there as basically being hull mounted machine guns to my mind. Even if they leave huge blind spots for doing their job of keeping infantry away. I am also far more okay with the Gladiator's side mounted multi-meltas compared to the lascannon sponsons of a Predator (though the heavy bolter ones do get a pass). They appear more integrated into the frame on the Gladiator than just hanging off a bit of metal like on the Predator. Again, just personal preference though.

I like the Gladiator's appearance far more than the predator. Just like I like the Impulsor over the Rhino and the Repulsor over the Land Raider. I don't particularly like any of them as they are all too boxy and tall, but the space marine tank aesthetic is just that. So at least it's consistent. I can agree that the grav plates aren't that nice looking and kinda pain to deal with on the model. At least GW seems to be moving away with individual grav plate pieces now.

First non-Dread Primaris vehicle I've liked.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, I hate it when vehicles have more effective secondary weapons than turret weapons. Like, who designs these things, why is the turret mounted weapon less effective than the multimeltas mounted in little boxes hanging off the sides?

I largely agree with this. One of the things I dislike the most about the Repulsor is that its most powerful weapon option is front hull mounted when there's a turret on top. I let the multi-melta slide on the Gladiator only in that I can imagine not on the tabletop the double las talons have considerably more range than the meltas making them more ideal for hull down scenarios. Where the meltas serve more in an assault tank charge?, I guess. I often have a hard time wrapping my mind around how 40k tankers try and do their jobs considering how their tanks are designed and what little I know about how tank battles play out on our Earth.

This was the first hover tank I didn't hate.

Still not super keen on it- there won't be any in my GK or DW forces, and those are the only Marines I'm really interested in.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".

You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.

I'm trying to point out that "must play current tournament-standard 9e 40k and be nailed to GW's whimsical and confused efforts at "balance"" isn't the only way to play the game, and the more people who play 30k/oldhammer the more people will be rescued from the tyranny of the tournament players' "must build spam lists of models you don't like or go home!" attitude.

Eh, I’d buy one if it wasn’t double the price of a predator because <<Primaris>>

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Also, I hate it when vehicles have more effective secondary weapons than turret weapons. Like, who designs these things, why is the turret mounted weapon less effective than the multimeltas mounted in little boxes hanging off the sides?

I largely agree with this. One of the things I dislike the most about the Repulsor is that its most powerful weapon option is front hull mounted when there's a turret on top. I let the multi-melta slide on the Gladiator only in that I can imagine not on the tabletop the double las talons have considerably more range than the meltas making them more ideal for hull down scenarios. Where the meltas serve more in an assault tank charge?, I guess. I often have a hard time wrapping my mind around how 40k tankers try and do their jobs considering how their tanks are designed and what little I know about how tank battles play out on our Earth.

I'm with you guys on this one. Gw has a bad tendency to make a tanks primary weapon look rather lackluster compared to its secondary weapons. Case in point, my current pet peav: Average damage from a Fellblade's accelerator cannon AE profile against T8 3+: 5.333, average for its quad lascannon sponsons against T8 3+: 10.37. Why? The aggravating thing is it's an easy fix: just give the AE shells the same profile as the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon. They were practically the same guns in 7th, with both being: Heavy 1, AP2 <ARMOURBANE>, the only difference being that the Fellblade Accelerator Cannon AE shells were S9 vs the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon at S8. Why they didn't do that, search me.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".

You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.

I'm trying to point out that "must play current tournament-standard 9e 40k and be nailed to GW's whimsical and confused efforts at "balance"" isn't the only way to play the game, and the more people who play 30k/oldhammer the more people will be rescued from the tyranny of the tournament players' "must build spam lists of models you don't like or go home!" attitude.

Fair enough. I already try to avoid the Spamalot players. I'd be game for playing 30k or older editions, but there's still the problem of finding others interested in that.

 Stormonu wrote:
Eh, I’d buy one if it wasn’t double the price of a predator because <<Primaris>>

If its any consolation the kit has a lot more stuff going on in it. Like plenty of bits and its fairly well made (using impulsor as a guide) compared to a predator.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
...And tanks should have treads IMO. Give me a Fellblade or a Sicaran any day over an Astraeus or one of these things. Fortunately gw makes both, so we can both be happy, though unfortunately mine now eat CP, for "reasons".

You could play 30k with them.

1: Why should I have to?

2: A 30k game in Kentucky? I've never seen one.

But this isn't the place for that discussion. We've already had multiple threads on Martial Legacy (Though I'd love to discuss it more in an appropriate thread). I was just pointing out to Saturmorn Carvilli that we both have options to use the kinds of tanks we each prefer, though mine have an arbitrary cost added to them.

I'm trying to point out that "must play current tournament-standard 9e 40k and be nailed to GW's whimsical and confused efforts at "balance"" isn't the only way to play the game, and the more people who play 30k/oldhammer the more people will be rescued from the tyranny of the tournament players' "must build spam lists of models you don't like or go home!" attitude.

Fair enough. I already try to avoid the Spamalot players. I'd be game for playing 30k or older editions, but there's still the problem of finding others interested in that.

Chicken/egg. The more people who try the more success they'll have. Don't give up hope!

I like it! The only Primaris vehicle I haven't liked is still the base Impulsor. These ones are much more up my alley.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I like it! The only Primaris vehicle I haven't liked is still the base Impulsor. These ones are much more up my alley.

Same, the impulsor feels half done and turrets are my jam. I really love the executioner since its has one of the best turret to tank ratios ive seen in 40k and really feels like a real tank. These look like they may get close.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?

I don't hate this as much as the repulsor but indeed it shares that mental image, along with the inceptors and suppressors flying through the air like deflating balloons.
WEEE, gravtech go brrrt!

I don't like the cartoonyness of CSM with the daemon engines and the roidraging aesthetic, but primaris give us a run for our money.
But then I also think centurions look like they would be waddling and falling over face first, so it's not even a primaris complaint.

for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?



that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry

 Roknar wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Am I the only one who imagines all of these various primaris tanks spinning around like the spaceships in The Last Starfighter in order to fire all of their weapons at a single target?

I don't hate this as much as the repulsor but indeed it shares that mental image, along with the inceptors and suppressors flying through the air like deflating balloons.
WEEE, gravtech go brrrt!

I don't like the cartoonyness of CSM with the daemon engines and the roidraging aesthetic, but primaris give us a run for our money.
But then I also think centurions look like they would be waddling and falling over face first, so it's not even a primaris complaint.

If you think daemon engines are too cartoony that shouldn't be a problem. I've been playing Night Lords for going on two decades and don't own, have never owned, or ever plan to own daemon engines. Csm have plenty of non-daemon engine options for vehicles.

BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry

Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
for those criticizing the massive amount of guns stuck on, let's try to look at the actual pictures instead of just spam repulsor memes?

that's a top down image of the tank.
it has a forward firing turrent gun and some sponson guns. that's pretty normal. and is no differant from the predator. the only thing additional to this. are some things mounted on the side of the turret that are are actually grenade launchers, being placed alongside the side of the turrent works. they're intended to mostly scare off infantry getting close. (to the point where I suspect the designer doesn't even consider it important for killing so much as supression()

even the repulsor isn't that bad. once you look at it you realize a lot of the guns sticking out of the side are actually covering the doorways the infantry exit from. so.. same idea. providing support to the infantry

Consider, however, that in the real world the idea of sponsons/secondary turrets was deemed inefficient and dumped from tank designs entirely very quickly (the Renault FT, which pioneered the configuration almost every tank from WWII on used, entered service a year after the tank was invented), and modern armoured vehicles tend to have one main gun and 2-3 pintle/co-axial machine guns at most. To someone who knows anything about tanks outside of Warhammer every tank in Warhammer looks pretty ludicrous.

ohh absolutely, I mean the Lemen Russ is a HORRIABLE design. with all it's long flat surfaces.

it's why I find some of the criticism of the new Marine tanks (actually some of the criticism of many new vehicles) a bit puzzling as people nitpick how aweful the design is while acting like horriably ineffective tank design isn't part of the "flavor" of 40k.