Space Marine Gladiator

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.

**Tygre**

Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

**AnomanderRake**

Tygre wrote:
Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

Multi-melta sponsons? Lascannon sponsons?

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Tygre wrote:
Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

I would also say the invention of the bazooka, panzershrek, panzerfaust and a whole host of infantry wielded anti-tank weapons also made shooting sponson weapons into a trench a pretty bad idea. And that's without bringing up the mechanical difficulties of sponsons. Given that 40k does have melta and krak weapons (even heavy mining equipment) that are at least as common as the mentioned WWII weaponry, I don't know if I would risk a tank (which are almost always consider holy relics of a bygone age) when I could just use infantry to make sure the trench is clear.

**Gadzilla666**

BrianDavion wrote:
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.

I like my anachronistic WW1 derived Land Raiders. But I'll admit this thing isn't too bad. It's pretty much just a floating Predator. I'd still like it if it had treads.

Sorry if my little joke bugged you, but you have to admit that the sheer number of different weapons that a Repulsor can have is a bit silly, if for no other reason than how long it takes to roll them all. How many weapons can they have? Seven? Eight? Hell, my Fellblade only has six, and it makes up more than a quarter of a 2000 point list.

**H.B.M.C.**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I like my anachronistic WW1 derived Land Raiders. But I'll admit this thing isn't too bad. It's pretty much just a floating Predator. I'd still like it if it had treads.

I completely agree. I like tanks in 40K not being realistic. Sponsons and low ground clearence? Oh no!

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Sorry if my little joke bugged you, but you have to admit that the sheer number of different weapons that a Repulsor can have is a bit silly, if for no other reason than how long it takes to roll them all. How many weapons can they have? Seven? Eight?

That's why I don't like the Repulsor. It's just covered in guns. It's oversaturated and ends up an eyesore. This Gladiator seems far more restrained.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hell, my Fellblade only has six, and it makes up more than a quarter of a 2000 point list.

Do you get paid every time you mention your Fellblade?

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Tygre wrote:Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

Not really.

First off, the engineering challenges to tank turret construction were still being considered in WWII. The inability to manufacture a sufficiently large turret to house the 75mm gun with adequate working space led to the creation of the M3 with the hull mount until the M4's turret problem could be resolved. Constructing the heavy gun turrets of a battleship is a completely different beast from constructing tank turrets.

Second, sponsons went away really fast, because they didn't actually offer a serious improvement in weapons capability and forced compromises that made the vehicle as a whole weaker, such as needing to be tall enough to fit the sponson within the height of the tank and needing to be big enough for sponson crew.

Finally, tanks have been progressively getting less festooned with guns, because guns require crew to operate them and don't meaningfully add to it's offensive capability.

Two things annoy me:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.

2: the fact that for some tanks, especially now, the secondary battery is more powerful than the primary weapon. Take, for example, a Leman Russ. The dedicated heavy antitank weapon mounted in the turret hits once for 1d6 damage, if equipped with multimeltas the sponson guns inflict 4 shots for 1d6+2. Why bother mounting the big gun if it's worse than a multimelta, why not just mount another multimelta, the multimelta is cheaper, smaller, lighter, more swift to maneuver, and would make for a better vehicle. This isn't actually because the Vanquisher AT Gun is weaker than a Multimelta in universe. This is because GW doesn't know how to do math and thinks that 1d6 shots for 1d3 damage at S8 AP2 is worse than 1 shot at 1d6 damage at S8 AP3 because the vanquisher gun rolls a D6 for damage, ignoring the fact that total damage onto target is a product of shots and damage.

BrianDavion wrote:
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.

The leman russ is not well designed, but not for lacking sloped armor. It is abnormally tall, its internal proportions literally do not work, and it has 0 suspension travel so it will be limited to very slow speeds and be a very rough ride.

However, the lack of sloping isn't a concern. First off, the main glacis plate is sloped, and the sides are unsloped. This is the same as basically all tanks from the M4 to the M1. The whole sloped armor thing like the T-34 and Panther by and large fell out of favor uh... immediately after the war, because sloped armor on any surface other than the front is actually of net detriment. It cost internal volume, adds height, and adds weight for largely minimal protective gain.

In fact, for weight, sloped armor is no better than unsloped armor: think about it this way: if you have a square cross section of part of the side of your tank, the vertical panel has a length of 1 and the angled panel across the diagonal has a length of sqrt(2) [1.414]. The effective thickness of a sloped plate is trigonometrically computed as the thickness divided by the cosine of it's angle from vertical, so for a 45 degree angled plate you'd coincidentally also have sqrt(2) effective thickness.
In general, the panel length can be expressed as h/cos(theta) where h is the height of the plate to be armored and theta is the angle from vertical it's sloped at, and the effective armor thickness is t/cos(theta), where t is the plate thickness. Thus, it takes exactly as much weight to make up the added length of the plate as you save from it not having to be as thick, and the only way to actually be better armored for your weight is to have superior metallurgy. In addition, by having sloped armor, you lose half of that potential internal volume of the vehicle that that section would have had, and also narrow your turret ring which limits the size of your gun.

More relevantly, being tall is bad. It makes you a larger target and it costs weight with essentially no advantage.

**Tygre**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tygre wrote:Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

Not really.

First off, the engineering challenges to tank turret construction were still being considered in WWII. The inability to manufacture a sufficiently large turret to house the 75mm gun with adequate working space led to the creation of the M3 with the hull mount until the M4's turret problem could be resolved. Constructing the heavy gun turrets of a battleship is a completely different beast from constructing tank turrets.

My point was that the concept of turrets was clearly known. Yes I know the scale difference between warships and tanks requires different construction methods. The 75mm gun problem was that the early WW2 tank hulls were too small for the bigger guns. They didn't need just larger turrets, but larger turret rings.

Second, sponsons went away really fast, because they didn't actually offer a serious improvement in weapons capability and forced compromises that made the vehicle as a whole weaker, such as needing to be tall enough to fit the sponson within the height of the tank and needing to be big enough for sponson crew.

Yes they weren't used because nations were broke and went with small tanks. And more importantly trench warfare became less common.

Finally, tanks have been progressively getting less festooned with guns, because guns require crew to operate them and don't meaningfully add to it's offensive capability.

Two things annoy me:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.

Yes they annoy me too. I consider marine vehicles to be light support vehicles since they had man portable scale weaponry.

2: the fact that for some tanks, especially now, the secondary battery is more powerful than the primary weapon. Take, for example, a Leman Russ. The dedicated heavy antitank weapon mounted in the turret hits once for 1d6 damage, if equipped with multimeltas the sponson guns inflict 4 shots for 1d6+2. Why bother mounting the big gun if it's worse than a multimelta, why not just mount another multimelta, the multimelta is cheaper, smaller, lighter, more swift to maneuver, and would make for a better vehicle. This isn't actually because the Vanquisher AT Gun is weaker than a Multimelta in universe. This is because GW doesn't know how to do math and thinks that 1d6 shots for 1d3 damage at S8 AP2 is worse than 1 shot at 1d6 damage at S8 AP3 because the vanquisher gun rolls a D6 for damage, ignoring the fact that total damage onto target is a product of shots and damage.

[color=red] I agree that sponsons should not outgun the main gun on the tank. I see a use (fluff wise) for sponsons for anti infantry defensive use (read heavy bolter sponsons and Primaris alternates).

BrianDavion wrote:
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.

The leman russ is not well designed, but not for lacking sloped armor. It is abnormally tall, its internal proportions literally do not work, and it has 0 suspension travel so it will be limited to very slow speeds and be a very rough ride.

However, the lack of sloping isn't a concern. First off, the main glacis plate is sloped, and the sides are unsloped. This is the same as basically all tanks from the M4 to the M1. The whole sloped armor thing like the T-34 and Panther by and large fell out of favor uh... immediately after the war, because sloped armor on any surface other than the front is actually of net detriment. It cost internal volume, adds height, and adds weight for largely minimal protective gain.

In fact, for weight, sloped armor is no better than unsloped armor: think about it this way: if you have a square cross section of part of the side of your tank, the vertical panel has a length of 1 and the angled panel across the diagonal has a length of sqrt(2) [1.414]. The effective thickness of a sloped plate is trigonometrically computed as the thickness divided by the cosine of it's angle from vertical, so for a 45 degree angled plate you'd coincidentally also have sqrt(2) effective thickness.
In general, the panel length can be expressed as h/cos(theta) where h is the height of the plate to be armored and theta is the angle from vertical it's sloped at, and the effective armor thickness is t/cos(theta), where t is the plate thickness. Thus, it takes exactly as much weight to make up the added length of the plate as you save from it not having to be as thick, and the only way to actually be better armored for your weight is to have superior metallurgy. In addition, by having sloped armor, you lose half of that potential internal volume of the vehicle that that section would have had, and also narrow your turret ring which limits the size of your gun.

More relevantly, being tall is bad. It makes you a larger target and it costs weight with essentially no advantage.

My point is when dealing with trenches etc defensive sponson weapons have their uses. If a guy can pop out of a trench and shoot you with a bazooka it is handy to have a MG (not AT gun) that can aim down. In manoeuvre warfare not as important. In the notes designers left for the early rhomboid tanks it was mentioned that they did consider a turret, but that would make the tank too top heavy and they need a weapon that could shoot down into the trenches.

Of course the biggest problem with sponsons is it makes the tank too tall.

I appear to have derailed this thread my apologies.

**BrianDavion**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tygre wrote:Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

Not really.

First off, the engineering challenges to tank turret construction were still being considered in WWII. The inability to manufacture a sufficiently large turret to house the 75mm gun with adequate working space led to the creation of the M3 with the hull mount until the M4's turret problem could be resolved. Constructing the heavy gun turrets of a battleship is a completely different beast from constructing tank turrets.

Second, sponsons went away really fast, because they didn't actually offer a serious improvement in weapons capability and forced compromises that made the vehicle as a whole weaker, such as needing to be tall enough to fit the sponson within the height of the tank and needing to be big enough for sponson crew.

Finally, tanks have been progressively getting less festooned with guns, because guns require crew to operate them and don't meaningfully add to it's offensive capability.

Two things annoy me:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.

this has long annoyed me too. luckly GW seems to be cluing in here the first change on this order was saw was the predator's autocanon being made differant from a hand held autocanon. and vehicle plasma canons are now "heavy plasma canons"

and of course most new vehicles have their own weapons, and not a "infantry gun glued onto a turret"

**JohnnyHell**

They look cool. It’s a floating tacticool tank. Love it.

**JawRippa**

My personal gripe with it is that it is an anti-grav. Boxy design fits rhinos, but oh boy, it would look much better on tracks...

**nekooni**

JohnnyHell wrote:
They look cool. It’s a floating tacticool tank. Love it.

And that's exactly the point of it

**Galas**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

1: the fact that so many 40k tanks are gun a bunch of man portable weapons systems stapled together. While there have been such vehicles, like the Ontos, most of them are derived from their cheapness and small size and weight, and are not main battle tanks. Fundamentally, 4 man-portable AT weapons stapled together is not as good as 1 bigger gun. Using multiple small weapons to equal one big one is basically a game concept derived from HP and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how armor works and how tanks are engaged and destroyed.

Thanks for saying it. Thats one of the things I most hate from many many GW vehicle weapons. They are just normal heavy weapons. Like, what? Why I'm paying a ton of points for the privilege of having all my heavy weapons straped on a single, expensive box instead of diversed in my infantry squads? It makes tanks look pointless, and it makes them compete for the same space as squads of heavy weapon teams, so one or the other will be more efficient at any given time, like predators vs devastators.

**Tygre**

The first Predator Annihilator was (fluff-wise) was a regular Predator which was converted to take two of the man portable lascannons in the turret.

**Eonfuzz**

Should've been piloted by an Aeldari, flying anti gravity vehicles lmfao...

**Dysartes**

JohnnyHell wrote:
They look cool. It’s a floating tacticool tank.

Can we send it back to Corvus Belli, please?

As with every Steroid Boy tank so far, the damn thing should be on tracks, not floating.

**Tyel**

I like it a lot more than the basic Repulsor, which I'm afraid I agree was just "do you like guns with your guns?" The executioner has grown on me a bit - but still seems over the top.

I tend to think aesthetically "this is a tank, it has one big tank gun" is better - but the rules recognising this have often been poor, due to GW's obsession of "one gun=one shot the end". So you end up needing bags of rules to make it work.

**Sunny Side Up**

Love the mini.

Too bad GW nerfed vehicles into the ground.

**Rosebuddy**

I don't mind that it's ugly but I do think it's kind of charmless. I see what they're going for but eeh, eeeh.

**psipso**

I'm also not sold with the hovertank idea. For Eldar and Tau it looks cool because they have more round or alien look aesthetic. But imperium ones that are basically metal boxes look like more flying shoebox instead of tanks. Imao this is the same problem that the storm raven has.

I agree that the model will look way better on track instead of grav thingys. However, I'm afraid that is already late for the whole primaris vehicle range to consider this.

**SturmOgre**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Tygre wrote:
Sponsons do have their uses. Look at WW1 warships they had turrets. So you may ask why didn't the first tanks then. Well turrets can change their angle left and right just fine; aim up to a reasonable degree. But if you need to aim down, say into a trench, they suck. So they went with sponsons.

For defensive weaponry, for anti-infantry use, I find sponsons appropriate.

I would also say the invention of the bazooka, panzershrek, panzerfaust and a whole host of infantry wielded anti-tank weapons also made shooting sponson weapons into a trench a pretty bad idea. And that's without bringing up the mechanical difficulties of sponsons. Given that 40k does have melta and krak weapons (even heavy mining equipment) that are at least as common as the mentioned WWII weaponry, I don't know if I would risk a tank (which are almost always consider holy relics of a bygone age) when I could just use infantry to make sure the trench is clear.

Not to mention that most sponsons we see don't appear to have much in the way of vertical movement in the first place.

**the_scotsman**

BrianDavion wrote:
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.

I don't nitpick the design from an imaginary functional perspective. I am a mechanical engineer, I know NOOOOOOOOONE of the vehicles in 40k would actually fething work, mostly I just think that they look like ugly lumpy misshapen turds.

I also think Leman Russes do. And rhino-based marine tanks. The only marine vehicle I've ever felt like that aesthetic worked on was the Dreadnought, because of the whole body horror/contrast with the sleek functional walkers of other sci-fi settings angle of it.

The primaris vehicles are just more offensive than the base rhino vehicles because they stick all the extra greeblies and antennas and random boxes and crap all over them.

There's also the fact that every marine visible on these models looks completely static that makes it look even more like a cheap GI Joe toy than something I'd pay whatever 90 fething dollars for or whatever stupid-ass price they're asking for this thing. Pilots on Necron vehicles have more personality than marine vehicle operators, they're looking at the screens, they're pushing the buttons, they're pulling the levers. The only marine vehicle I can come up with where the pilots are doing something other than "sitting looking straight forward" or "arms straight out holding handle looking straight forward" is the scout transport thingy.

**BrianDavion**

even the dreadnought isn't a very good design. ignoring the practicality of a combat walker at all they have a few issues. to start with the elgs are too short, the best a standard dreadnought could proably manage is a waddle (the redemptor BTW addresses this nicely) I honestly suspect the pilot would struggle to control the thing though MIU, a more human shape would have been more practical.

**jaredb**

I at first wasn't a fan. but I really like the look of the laser destroyer variant. I'd be fine with a few of those as part of a mechanized force!

**mrFickle**

I think the new primaris vehicles are just lacking a bit of character and look a bit uninspired. Which is a shame considering how cool the new primaris models are.

**Unit1126PLL**

Is it wrong of me to think that Eldar vehicles look and feel more like reasonable real tanks than Imperial ones do?

I think the Fire Prism hits all the major points:
1) All-terrain capability (almost literally an aircraft)
2) High operational mobility (one of the only tanks in the game that can deep strike from the upper atmosphere)
3) A single, large, turret mounted primary armament that outclasses any man-portable weapon that I am aware of
4) The ability to switch "ammunition types" (or laser fire modes in this case) for that single primary armament, which still gives it flexibility against different target types despite being only a single cannon
5) A small secondary weapon that would still be a heavy weapon to a person, but is effectively a defensive weapon to said tank (shuriken cannon!).
6) The ability to link targeting data and fire protocols with other tanks of the same type (indicating a computerized fire control system and excellent communications gear)
7) Defensive systems that extend beyond sheer thickness of passive armor

I think if you gave WWII -> Modern designers 40k technology, they'd come up with something more analogous to the Fire Prism than to the Repulsor or Leman Russ.

**Brutus_Apex**

As with all things Primaris, it's way too high tech/tacticool.

It's going to take a lot of cutting and converting to make it looks like it belongs to 40K.

**Not Online!!!**

except if you hire the germans, then they'd build you the ratte.

**Unit1126PLL**

Not Online!!! wrote:
except if you hire the germans, then they'd build you the ratte.

Well, they'd try to build you a ratte, fail catastrophically, and then steal the T-34 expy and overengineer that. So you'd probably end up with a Hammerhead instead of a Fire Prism.

"Look, it has extra armor (13 wounds)!" Well, yes, but it lost a good bit of mobility and cannot deep strike...
"Well, it has a computerized fire control system!" Ok, sure, but I'd rather concentrate fire within the same platoon rather than reaching out to supporting elements with markerlights that aren't as reliable! That flexibility means it's worse in output than the ~~Fire Prism~~ source material as well!
"Don't worry, it can switch ammunition types! It has a RAIL GUN!!" Well, the recoil is so high now that it can't shoot twice, even if it stays perfectly still, because the gunner can't lay the gun between shots as easily...

**LunarSol**

mrFickle wrote:
I think the new primaris vehicles are just lacking a bit of character and look a bit uninspired. Which is a shame considering how cool the new primaris models are.

Agreed. I vastly prefer the Primaris line, but the treads are way more impressive looking than the hover design.

**Not Online!!!**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
except if you hire the germans, then they'd build you the ratte.

Well, they'd try to build you a ratte, fail catastrophically, and then steal the T-34 expy and overengineer that. So you'd probably end up with a Hammerhead instead of a Fire Prism.

"Look, it has extra armor (13 wounds)!" Well, yes, but it lost a good bit of mobility and cannot deep strike...
"Well, it has a computerized fire control system!" Ok, sure, but I'd rather concentrate fire within the same platoon rather than reaching out to supporting elements with markerlights that aren't as reliable! That flexibility means it's worse in output than the ~~Fire Prism~~ source material as well!
"Don't worry, it can switch ammunition types! It has a RAIL GUN!!" Well, the recoil is so high now that it can't shoot twice, even if it stays perfectly still, because the gunner can't lay the gun between shots as easily...

You forgot the final step:

"Then we slap oerlikon 20 mm cannons on it and call it a day!!!!!"