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 try not to compare the idea of modern or real tanks into the game because......

1: Art trumps science in 40k, its a game that features BDSM lawnmower chariots anything goes really.

2: We don't really know just how weird the futures understanding of technology has changed. We know they worship machines and fear change, etc. I like to think of the idea that the screw was invented several hundred years before the screwdriver. That means sometimes what we assume to be logical is in fact not to other cultures. For instance, the old lore stated the the Leman Russ was some sort of repurposed agricultural machinery, and the Knight suits are meant for logging and mining. So that may also explain why they are....weird. Culturally speaking they may think that sponsons are the best thing ever and feel the need to slap them on everything. Im sure the ones on a russ may be computer targeted and if not you just cram a human in it, theres always more men then there are machines.

3. It looks cool. I for one love the new look of primaris stuff because it represents clean lines, cool bits, and a focus on reoccuring themes and lines across the new range to bring it all together, and the fact that none of them are the ancient and storied warmachines of the past and are instead new inventions they do not possess some of the usual embellishments. So yeah....it looks cool.

 LunarSol wrote:

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.

To behonest though the main problem is really the aesthetic someone decided for the repulsor plates.
Seriously whats up with the sudden need to put crash bumpers on everything that look like they would bend if you hit even a lamppost. These are supposed to be tanks you can charge through walls with etc.

BrianDavion wrote:
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.

Doesn't matter, do not care about practical. A waddling, brutish, blunt box with a sarcophagus stuck in the middle and a stubby brutal cannon jutting out of the side is to a sleek sci-fi walker what a space marine is to an imperial stormtrooper from starwars.

That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.

I still prefer tracked SM vehicles.
Gime the rhino and LR chassis any day.

This just looks like it should be on tracks..
The turrets and guns look neat though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.

Yes, but then it forgot how to use them while the Fire Prism retained the ability to change munition types.

If you want to change munition types as an Imperial Guard officer, better order another tank. And hope you don't need antitank shells because the Vanquisher is pants.

the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.

Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.

Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?

Nope.

G.I Joe tanks look surreal, at least the one I had. the marine stuff at least as far as rhino and land raider based stuff just looks modern day armour with wierd sized weapon stuck on them.

The marine flyers and the anti tank guns look very G.I Joe though. I think there is a good chance they started the whole idea of changing stuff from looking kind of a realistic, to lets build a Cobra Septic Tank.

mrFickle wrote:
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 valiant and the reaper aren’t bad. The Lancer is.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.

Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?

Nope.

They all absolutely do when painted in the Ultramarines toy blue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.

Yes, but then it forgot how to use them while the Fire Prism retained the ability to change munition types.

If you want to change munition types as an Imperial Guard officer, better order another tank. And hope you don't need antitank shells because the Vanquisher is pants.

I believe the Leman Russ Battle Cannon's profile is actually intended to represent the combined effect of HE and APCBC-HE shells.

The HE shell was a S8 AP3 large blast that rolled twice and picked the lowest [remember, the S of blast effects was halved at the time], while the APCHE shell lost the blast but rolled twice and selected the highest for penetration.

Thus, the standard profile of S8 AP3 Large Blast w/ 2d6b1 for penetration would be basically assuming that the tank fired the right ammunition at whatever target you're hitting.

You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.

SecondTime wrote:
You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.

There were specific optional rules for choosing the loadouts of your Leman Russ tanks in IA 1

You can choose between HE, APCBC-HE, Starshells, Smoke, and HE-Incendiary for the Leman Russ
The Vanquisher could equip APFSDS and gun-launched top-attack HEAT missiles, and IIRC the codex provided an HE shell
The Conqueror has laser-guided munitions, and the Demolisher had an option for a super-heavy HEAT shell.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.

There were specific optional rules for choosing the loadouts of your Leman Russ tanks in IA 1

You can choose between HE, APCBC-HE, Starshells, Smoke, and HE-Incendiary for the Leman Russ
The Vanquisher could equip APFSDS and gun-launched top-attack HEAT missiles, and IIRC the codex provided an HE shell
The Conqueror has laser-guided munitions, and the Demolisher had an option for a super-heavy HEAT shell.

So FW was aware at some point. You think current GW actually knows any of this?

SecondTime wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
You give them so much credit. I doubt GW even is aware of HE and AT shells. They aren't aware of how the arabic numeral system works sometimes.

There were specific optional rules for choosing the loadouts of your Leman Russ tanks in IA 1

You can choose between HE, APCBC-HE, Starshells, Smoke, and HE-Incendiary for the Leman Russ
The Vanquisher could equip APFSDS and gun-launched top-attack HEAT missiles, and IIRC the codex provided an HE shell
The Conqueror has laser-guided munitions, and the Demolisher had an option for a super-heavy HEAT shell.

So FW was aware at some point. You think current GW actually knows any of this?

Probably. The fact that tank guns fire different types of munitions against different targets is reasonably well known, and it's sufficiently well known by them that they implement it for some other weapons like anything that has Frag or Krak shells, or the railgun or fire prism.

It's just irrelevant to model in the game for tanks like the Leman Russ. At the level we play the game at, it's more appropriate to assume that the tank crew selects the right shell than it is to implement rules for every type of shell there could be.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

To be fair, the Leman Russ lore wise has a variety of ammunition types to chose from, I think IA1 had rules for choosing how many shells of each type were onboard your tanks.

Yes, but then it forgot how to use them while the Fire Prism retained the ability to change munition types.

If you want to change munition types as an Imperial Guard officer, better order another tank. And hope you don't need antitank shells because the Vanquisher is pants.

I believe the Leman Russ Battle Cannon's profile is actually intended to represent the combined effect of HE and APCBC-HE shells.

The HE shell was a S8 AP3 large blast that rolled twice and picked the lowest [remember, the S of blast effects was halved at the time], while the APCHE shell lost the blast but rolled twice and selected the highest for penetration.

Thus, the standard profile of S8 AP3 Large Blast w/ 2d6b1 for penetration would be basically assuming that the tank fired the right ammunition at whatever target you're hitting.

The problem is that a single profile (what we have now and had from GW without FW since 5th at least) doesn't reflect that very well imo. But I think that's subjective. The Fire Prism's multiple profiles help a lot more to differentiate AT vs AP.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.

Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?

Nope.

They all absolutely do when painted in the Ultramarines toy blue.

A: Easy fix to that.
B: Still less so than the Primaris vehicles.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:That angle, for me, is....okay with the new primaris stuff. It certainly looks brutal and unsubtle. What I dislike about it is that it just kind of looks like a cheap toy, there's no dioramic action to it. All the marines you see in them are in completely static, often arbitrary places around the model. They look like a GI Joe toy I might have had when I was 9. It's never something I'd pay whatever, 80 bucks for. Compared to other spectacular big models like the Canoptek Doom thingy, the Lord Discordant, the new Ork buggies, the new Exorcist model, there's just no comparison.

Just to confirm, do the older SM tanks share this same problem?

Nope.

They all absolutely do when painted in the Ultramarines toy blue.

A: Easy fix to that.
B: Still less so than the Primaris vehicles.

I am not seeing these differences when I look at mine. Firstborn and Primaris tanks have a lot of the same issues coming from the fact they are basically the same size and shape. I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore. So grav becomes a non-issue for me since there is a space marine design precedent already set.

I have some (though not as much as Inquisitor Lord Katherine) knowledge of actual tanks. And like learning how the Moon doesn't actually follow someone, some the magic is gone and no take backs. So most of my issues with Primaris tanks were already present in previous 40k tanks already covered in this thread. I do find it kinda funny that Primaris tanks are suddenly G.I. Joe/Action Man when Firstborn are not. They are both equally silly to me, though; not always in the same ways. I mean neither look at all function beyond a very, very quick sideways glance even with timey-wimey future tech. I suppose the Primaris ones can seem funnier as they seem to be trying harder to be 'serious military vehicles', but I think that has to do more with GW having the capability to do it more than a design shift of any sort. I can say I think Gladiator is moving toward a better design compared to the Repulsor.

^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

And as weird as sponsons are, they at least can point forward in the direction of attack, unlike most of the weapons on those.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

The LOGIC of having tiny little mini-turrets with a 45-degree field of fire pointing in every different direction only works when you're playing a game that's so abstract you can shoot them all in the same direction.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

Remember when it was orky to slap guns in random places facing random directions?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

And as weird as sponsons are, they at least can point forward in the direction of attack, unlike most of the weapons on those.

Fair enough. So it's more the repulsor frame and less the gladiator frame?

To be honest if the data sheet gave me the option I would never take the side and rear turret weapons on either repulsor frame. That's good part of the reason I like the Gladiator more. It cuts down the largely extraneous weapons down considerably to main gun, side turret guns and pintle stubber. Though again, if I could drop the side turret guns on the Gladiator, I probably would.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

Remember when it was orky to slap guns in random places facing random directions?

100%. And I'm actually sorta ok with jauntily built additions to SM vehicles in the spirit of auxiliarry Storm Bolters that are bolted on after the fact. But the idea that the tank comes out of the factory built with "door guns" is just wonky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

And as weird as sponsons are, they at least can point forward in the direction of attack, unlike most of the weapons on those.

Fair enough. So it's more the repulsor frame and less the gladiator frame?

To be honest if the data sheet gave me the option I would never take the side and rear turret weapons on either repulsor frame. That's good part of the reason I like the Gladiator more. It cuts down the largely extraneous weapons down considerably to main gun, side turret guns and pintle stubber. Though again, if I could drop the side turret guns on the Gladiator, I probably would.

Gladiator is better than the Repulsor, but it still comes across as a sort of kiddiefied Predator. The detailing looks extraneous and decorative/exaggerated, while the Predator looks very simple and practical in comparison.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore.

Curious about this, because if you put tracks on the two tanks you've got pictured, they'd be a lot like land raider's tracks. They'd very clearly go where the two big front 'skids' are, except recessed into the armor, and would run along the bottom (you'd pop off the side skids, and extend armor under the side doors), and replace the jet engines, which is where the tracks would feed back into the armor.

Both the rhino chassis and the land raider has the same kind of setup, though a slightly taller armored side (or rather, the repulsor cuts it short to stuff the antigrav skids underneath).

Not speaking to realism at all, just the overall design of a relatively narrow central hull sandwiched between armored side-sections.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

the older tanks didn't do it so it's automaticly bad?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^It's the huge array of guns pointing in every direction off the tanks. The array of weapon systems has ballooned to cartoonish levels.

the executioner is a bit odd tbut the repulsor is not "just a huge array of guns in every nonsensical direction" you clearly have a main turret gun, a forward mounted gun in a hull mounting (very typical) and a gun covering each door. and then some grenade launchers on the front and sides of the turret.

there is a LOGIC in the weapons placement.

It's nevertheless a "logic" that the older tank designs didn't go for. . . probably because it's illogical. Even the Land Raider could direct all it's firepower in one direction.

The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

the older tanks didn't do it so it's automaticly bad?

No. It just looks stupid and like a kid designed it.

Voss wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am not a fan of Primaris tanks having grav locomotion, but at the same time; for them to have acceptable tracks to me, they really wouldn't look like Space Marine tanks anymore.

Curious about this, because if you put tracks on the two tanks you've got pictured, they'd be a lot like land raider's tracks. They'd very clearly go where the two big front 'skids' are, except recessed into the armor, and would run along the bottom (you'd pop off the side skids, and extend armor under the side doors), and replace the jet engines, which is where the tracks would feed back into the armor.

Both the rhino chassis and the land raider has the same kind of setup, though a slightly taller armored side (or rather, the repulsor cuts it short to stuff the antigrav skids underneath).

Not speaking to realism at all, just the overall design of a relatively narrow central hull sandwiched between armored side-sections.

I really don't like the way Land Raider and Rhino-frame tanks have the WWI tracks running along the outer side, or just about, of the vehicle chassis. Which is where the Primaris tanks would also have to place it like you describe or else remove the side doors. Which if I had my druthers, I would put a more modern looking set of tracks and basically halve the height of the chassis. Something a closer to the Leopard 2 MBT (spoiler photo for reference). Also note, the Leopard 2 reference was only a quick search to have at least a basic visual model to demonstrate some basic concepts of what I would want. At very least, place the tracks like they are on the Sherman M4 tank. However, I think even if GW somehow 'space marine-afied' it, I don't think what I am looking for would ever really fit space marines and would likely read more as generic sci-fi tank. I would guess would get even more push back than grav tanks as criticism that they don't look 40k at all, and I would be forced to agree.



Honestly, not being able to move away from WWI style track placement has me thinking that grav plates are the next best thing for me. So while I am not a fan of the grav element. I am more a fan of it than where the tracks would have to be placed otherwise. So I think I mostly get the proponents of wanting the tracks, I just don't agree and see grav plates as an okay compromise for what I want and what space marine vehicles have to look like to keep their aesthetic.