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.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoiler:

I was today years old when I found out the Eyesore Mk.II had little Storm Bolter mini-turrets on the back of its turret.

Yikes...

The numerous weapons on the repulsor and executioner would seem not so ridiculous in previous editions of 40K when weapons had firing arcs and if all the little grenade launchers were some abstract defensive system. I think the way they are painted highlights them a bit too much as well, like the grenade boxes get painted a contrasting color so look extra busy. That being said the pintle mount should have just been the stubbed, the onslaught cannon looks a bit much. Same goes for the coaxial onslaught cannon on the executioner, though that is improved when converted to a short barrel.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoiler:

I was today years old when I found out the Eyesore Mk.II had little Storm Bolter mini-turrets on the back of its turret.

Yikes...

Yo dawg, I heard you like turrets. . .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Spoiler:

I was today years old when I found out the Eyesore Mk.II had little Storm Bolter mini-turrets on the back of its turret.

Yikes...

yeah not really sure what the sense behind those are the basic repulsors stormbolters at least have some logic to em

As someone who doesn’t have a breeze about real world tanks and is into 40K purely for the OTT boomsplosions, I don’t mind the marine tanks (though prefer the tracked ones as I feel that hover/flying tanks should be saved for other factions like Eldar or Necrons to make them more alien/futuristic).

I can understand people not liking primaris vehicles.

But how people can defend marine old vehicles as better? I'll admit I'm not a vehicle kinda guy, thats why I started with Tau (Ironically, I started to use infantry and suits, and ended up loving the devilfish and hammerhead), and my custodes and dark angels are basically just infantry, bikers, terminators and dreadnoughts. But consistently Space Marine vehicles have been the most boring and ugly vehicles in all of the game.

You have this super elite tactical force of super humans that work in fast-lighting strikes in the center of the enemy forces and their vehicles are... boring box-like vehicles based around some of the cheapest and worst vehicle designs of history?

 Galas wrote:
I can understand people not liking primaris vehicles.

But how people can defend marine old vehicles as better? I'll admit I'm not a vehicle kinda guy, thats why I started with Tau (Ironically, I started to use infantry and suits, and ended up loving the devilfish and hammerhead), and my custodes and dark angels are basically just infantry, bikers, terminators and dreadnoughts. But consistently Space Marine vehicles have been the most boring and ugly vehicles in all of the game.

You have this super elite tactical force of super humans that work in fast-lighting strikes in the center of the enemy forces and their vehicles are... boring box-like vehicles based around some of the cheapest and worst vehicle designs of history?

The Rhino is a simple metal box. Basic, effective, easy to maintain. Classic Marine vehicles are there to deliver and support the infantry, vs. IG infantry being there to support the tanks. All tanks using the Rhino Chassis are just variations on the metal box. Pretty straight forward, very grounded in "reality", and fairly crude in a way that reflects the mindset of much of the Imperium.

The Land Raider is the creme de la creme. It's a WW1 tank with laser cannons and doors on the front. It embodies the anachronistic thinking of 40K, particularly marines, and is unique. It speaks of decision making that is prioritizing things very differently than our modern "western" armies, and looks purpose built to smash into buildings to unload marines directly into brutal CC assaults.


The Primaris hover tanks are pretty generic sci-fi tacticool in comparison, and the proportions of their details make them look more toy-like.

I mean, I'm not defending primaris vehicles. I dislike them just as much as I dislike the old marine vehicles. I have a single rhino in my collection and thats for use with my Sisters of Silence.

At the end of the day I cannot say I really see one better than the other. All the stuff you are saying about the old vehicles I know a guy that is really passionate about the new primaris ones can come and do the same for the repulsor or the impulsor.

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.

Huh, I didn't realise you were the_scotsman.

But, as you feel the need to jump in and answer a question for someone else, I'll give the same response?
"Why not?"

And please be empirical here, none of this talk of "kiddifying" when I could say exactly the same about the older tanks, which are equally as kid-friendly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

Why is that "kid logic"? The Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer does this too - it has guns covering each exit, as well as grenade launchers (even if it functions differently in game - I would prefer for the Repulsor grenade launchers to function more like the Crusader/Redeemer style).

Galas wrote:I can understand people not liking primaris vehicles.

But how people can defend marine old vehicles as better?

Exactly my point. If you dislike Marine vehicles for being boxy and flat and looking like toys, I totally get that - but that's an issue which covers the entire Space Marine vehicle range, pretty much.

Now, I actually quite like the Astartes vehicle aesthetic, which is why I like the Primaris tanks, because they also fit it, by what I value in the older Astartes aesthetic.

You have this super elite tactical force of super humans that work in fast-lighting strikes in the center of the enemy forces and their vehicles are... boring box-like vehicles based around some of the cheapest and worst vehicle designs of history?

See, for me, that's part of why I love the Primaris stuff so much more than I do things like the Whirlwind, Hunter/Stalker, etc etc - because the Primaris stuff all seems to have a stronger sense of motion, of battlefield flexibility. They feel like they're actually built to get stuck in to the fighting and support the infantry, rather than Rhinos which seem only to exist as transport tin cans (which Drop Pods feel more suitable for) or the artillery tanks (where tank powered artillery just feels off in the Space Marine arsenal).

For me, it's things like the Razorback, Land Raiders, Predator, Vindicator, Repulsors, Gladiators, and Drop Pods which fit the Astartes brief the best.

Galas wrote:At the end of the day I cannot say I really see one better than the other. All the stuff you are saying about the old vehicles I know a guy that is really passionate about the new primaris ones can come and do the same for the repulsor or the impulsor.

Absolutely.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Rhino is a simple metal box. Basic, effective, easy to maintain. Classic Marine vehicles are there to deliver and support the infantry, vs. IG infantry being there to support the tanks. All tanks using the Rhino Chassis are just variations on the metal box. Pretty straight forward, very grounded in "reality", and fairly crude in a way that reflects the mindset of much of the Imperium.

The Land Raider is the creme de la creme. It's a WW1 tank with laser cannons and doors on the front. It embodies the anachronistic thinking of 40K, particularly marines, and is unique. It speaks of decision making that is prioritizing things very differently than our modern "western" armies, and looks purpose built to smash into buildings to unload marines directly into brutal CC assaults.


The Primaris hover tanks are pretty generic sci-fi tacticool in comparison, and the proportions of their details make them look more toy-like.

You could say generic for those hover/grav tanks, but I see it more using elements honed by evolution of design. I see WWI much like Cambrian life explosion where evolution was much less restricted on what could survive and what couldn't. At that time all manner of adaptations were tried out much like tank design. However, by mid-WWII, a good number of common adaptations tested on the battlefield showed what works and what doesn't. So as tank design (like life) began to converge on many similar elements regardless of place of design and manufacture. That's why they look so similar, and the Repulsor sticks out like a sore thumb.

I get that IoM design is supposed to be backward. Though space marine tanks are so backward that who ever did design them would have had to purposely made them bad for sake of being bad. They are terrible tank designs and even worse industrial vehicles/tractors. The Rhino looks to be a simple metal box. However, that is largely because the timey-wimey sci-fi tech to make it work is all hidden. Like a pocket watch, just because it has a simple care doesn't mean is has simple mechanisms inside. The tracks themselves would be a nightmare to maintain. The lack of clearance and suspension would make in ineffective even as a snowcat even if you didn't care about the quality of the ride let alone as a military vehicle. By rights, they should have shaken themselves apart after a decade of easy parade service.

Which is fine. Warhammer 40k goes out of its way to be obviously not realistic in nearly every single way. So crazy supre unrealistic vehicles should be expected. I do agree with Galas. I am not really defending Primaris vehicles. Or at least, only softly defending them if I am. To me, they are no better, and no worst, than the Firstborn vehicles that can before. They all look ugly and toy like to me because at the end of the day both groups are based on the same highly flawed design that stands on no kinda of scrutiny. None of the design flaws even approach anything close to the Rule of Cool. In fact, move further away from cool being basically boxes. Be it simple plain ones or ones cover in guns and gribblies. The Rhinos, Predators and Land Raider I have in my CSM are there to round out my army just as Repulsors, Impulsors and Gladiators will in my Primaris army. I don't really care for design of any of them as they are all equally dumb and toy-like.

^Well, if you want to talk "realistic", I believe it was Inq Lord Katherine who pointed out that the Rhino and Predator are basically the M113 and the version of the M113 with a turret. (I forget what it's called). The current Predator turret is almost identical to that tank iirc. Those tanks are basically real world design, with some slight additional armor "slabulation" for style. The goofy part is the sponsons, which have a historical basis and imo bely a crude mind set.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well, if you want to talk "realistic", I believe it was Inq Lord Katherine who pointed out that the Rhino and Predator are basically the M113 and the version of the M113 with a turret. (I forget what it's called). The current Predator turret is almost identical to that tank iirc. Those tanks are basically real world design, with some slight additional armor "slabulation" for style. The goofy part is the sponsons, which have a historical basis and imo bely a crude mind set.

To me, the only difference between the new Space Marine tanks and the old ones is that the new ones don't have tracks, but crude grav engines. They basically look the same. Sure, hte gguns got a bit bigger (which make sense they are tanks afterall) and they have those small missile packs that could look like counter-measure flares but actually are guided weapons. They are the same stuff as before. I prefer tracks personnaly since the Imperium anti-grav tech was supposed to be significantaly inferior to that of Taus and Eldars, but else they are pretty much the same basic design in bold primary colors just like the Marines themselves.

 Sgt_Smudge 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.

Huh, I didn't realise you were the_scotsman.

But, as you feel the need to jump in and answer a question for someone else, I'll give the same response?
"Why not?"

And please be empirical here, none of this talk of "kiddifying" when I could say exactly the same about the older tanks, which are equally as kid-friendly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

Why is that "kid logic"? The Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer does this too - it has guns covering each exit, as well as grenade launchers (even if it functions differently in game - I would prefer for the Repulsor grenade launchers to function more like the Crusader/Redeemer style).

"Empirically", the Land Raider guns are the main weapons of the vehicle, and happen to cover the doors while also being able to fire forward.

"Empirically", the Primaris tanks tend to have more weapon systems. This either requires more crew or new AI systems, so you're either using more of your valuable marines or you've got some fancy new fire control tech that the classic vehicles don't have.

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles do not have treads.

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles have a lot more visual clutter.

Insectum7 wrote:^Well, if you want to talk "realistic", I believe it was Inq Lord Katherine who pointed out that the Rhino and Predator are basically the M113 and the version of the M113 with a turret. (I forget what it's called). The current Predator turret is almost identical to that tank iirc. Those tanks are basically real world design, with some slight additional armor "slabulation" for style. The goofy part is the sponsons, which have a historical basis and imo bely a crude mind set.

Yeah. This Predator M113 is Australian, and lots of other countries have variations on "M113 w/ Turret":




As for the sponsons, I don't think they're crude, but they fall into the "why does the tank have these"? Like, there are 2 lascannons mounted in hanging mounts on the sides, which is basically the same as the twinlas mount in the turret or more powerful than an autocannon. Like, why is the turret weapon what it is if you can have a more powerful weapon just hanging there off the side of the tank?

Insectum7 wrote:
"Empirically", the Land Raider guns are the main weapons of the vehicle, and happen to cover the doors while also being able to fire forward.

That depends on how you build your land raider. If you build it the stupid way as illustrated on the box art and in the instructions, the guns don't cover the doors, in fact, they block the doors from opening and troops disembarking from the tank would have to disembark through the fire of it's own guns. This irritates me. Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

That depends upon how you look at it for the original landraider with lascannons (which really should have been a heavy lascannon or some such like they were described in some of the old 3rd edition fluff) are for engaging vehicals not covering disembarking troops, thats what the heavy bolters over the assualt ramp are for.

The crusader I can see arguments either way around.

That's the key here is a repulsor etc doesnt fit the idea of shock trooper/stormtroopers that Marines are ment to represent, while the landraider, Spartan and Mastadon really do.
They are heavy armoured delivery vehicals for angry close quarter murder specialists. You can take any of them crash into a building or just outside of to heavily armoured buildings and let your CC muder squad go ham.

Also if you include Falchion and Fellblades then predators as upgunned rhinos make way more sence for legion forces as they arn't supposed to be the heavy armour more the light weight armour with landraiders bridging the middle weight armour and the LoW are the true heavy armour.

The problem with the primaris stuff is it's a mishmash of modern military concepts within a setting that doesn't fight war the same way, repulsors of both kinds make no real sense in 40k terms its a big heavy box with entirely too many small fragile looking bolt on bits to go crashing through buildings and to big and heavy to actually be anti grav like Tau or eldar.

The spacecamino just why marines in an open vehical that's never been a thing, lads jump in the pickup while we race towards this fortification. The Gladiator is the lease out of place of the lot but it lacks the well its just a rhino with more structure and guns of a predator and if you were clean sheet designing it as a tank it's just no failed.

Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.

epronovost wrote:To me, the only difference between the new Space Marine tanks and the old ones is that the new ones don't have tracks, but crude grav engines. They basically look the same. Sure, hte gguns got a bit bigger (which make sense they are tanks afterall) and they have those small missile packs that could look like counter-measure flares but actually are guided weapons. They are the same stuff as before. I prefer tracks personnaly since the Imperium anti-grav tech was supposed to be significantaly inferior to that of Taus and Eldars, but else they are pretty much the same basic design in bold primary colors just like the Marines themselves.

That's pretty much how I see it, but I'm also fine with Space Marines having grav tech, seeing as Land Speeders have long been a thing, and the flavour of the Repulsor tech isn't "elegant anti-grav", but rather "punching the ground so hard it floats", which is SUPER Space Marine-y.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"Why not?"

And please be empirical here, none of this talk of "kiddifying" when I could say exactly the same about the older tanks, which are equally as kid-friendly.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The gun over each door is "kid-logic".

Why is that "kid logic"? The Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer does this too - it has guns covering each exit, as well as grenade launchers (even if it functions differently in game - I would prefer for the Repulsor grenade launchers to function more like the Crusader/Redeemer style).

"Empirically", the Land Raider guns are the main weapons of the vehicle, and happen to cover the doors while also being able to fire forward.

And what does this mean, other than just stating something for the sake of it? Why does this make the Primaris stuff "kiddified"?

"Empirically", the Primaris tanks tend to have more weapon systems. This either requires more crew or new AI systems, so you're either using more of your valuable marines or you've got some fancy new fire control tech that the classic vehicles don't have.

Um, yeah - automated fire control makes the most sense - because it's a "fancy new" vehicle. Again, really not seeing why this makes it "kid-friendly", which is what I'm asking here.

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles do not have treads.

And why does this make it "kiddified"? Do you also think Land Speeders aren't appropriate Space Marine vehicles, because they don't have tracks or wheels? Because right now, all you're doing is skimming the surface, you're not answering "why".

"Empirically" the Primaris vehicles have a lot more visual clutter.

Ah, but do they? When assembled with all the crates and stowage on the sides? Absolutely - but that's entirely optional, just like how someone could put all that on a Rhino, and it'd look just as busy.
Like, I'm looking at a Land Raider and Repulsor side by side, and honestly, they look about the same.

So, I'm slapping a big old *doubt* on that one, purely because that's not empirical.

Ice_can wrote:That's the key here is a repulsor etc doesnt fit the idea of shock trooper/stormtroopers that Marines are ment to represent, while the landraider, Spartan and Mastadon really do.

Curious - why doesn't it, but the Land Raider does? Is it the front ramp alone?
For me, I think the Repulsor fits very nicely into what I'd want/expect - large transport capacity, good speed, ground clearance, well armed and armoured for the thick of the fight - I feel it's much more suitable than Rhinos.

Rrepulsors of both kinds make no real sense in 40k terms its a big heavy box with entirely too many small fragile looking bolt on bits to go crashing through buildings and to big and heavy to actually be anti grav like Tau or eldar.

Exactly, too big and heavy to be anti-grav like Tau or Eldar is exactly WHY they fit Space Marines so well! A Rhino doesn't look like it could plow through a wall anywhere near as well as a Repulsor could.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The Rhino is a simple metal box. Basic, effective, easy to maintain. Classic Marine vehicles are there to deliver and support the infantry, vs. IG infantry being there to support the tanks. All tanks using the Rhino Chassis are just variations on the metal box. Pretty straight forward, very grounded in "reality", and fairly crude in a way that reflects the mindset of much of the Imperium.

The Land Raider is the creme de la creme. It's a WW1 tank with laser cannons and doors on the front. It embodies the anachronistic thinking of 40K, particularly marines, and is unique. It speaks of decision making that is prioritizing things very differently than our modern "western" armies, and looks purpose built to smash into buildings to unload marines directly into brutal CC assaults.


The Primaris hover tanks are pretty generic sci-fi tacticool in comparison, and the proportions of their details make them look more toy-like.

I like how people call something that follows real, existing tank much closer than Rhino did M113 a ""generic sci-fi tacticool toy"":



Primaris vehicles are basically Merkava in space - down to nearly identical, octagonal turret with flat rim, sloped front, and heavy stubbers mounted on hatches. It also funnily enough has remotely operated turred with HMG or grenade launcher in front, as well as internal mortar and coaxial HMG or autocannon, very close weapon loadout to new primaris vehicles - apparently someone forgot to tell them it's "unrealistic". Hell, the grenade dispensers on 40K turret people diss? Merkava has identical ones, see the oval cover to the right of smoke launchers? They sit right there.

It's funny that as soon as SM tank is copying 90s design instead of 70s it's somehow suddenly "tacticool toy", when what people call "clutter" is actually close to what modern, standard real-life tank is sporting these days and if anything, it's the Rhino/Predator that looks unrealistically bare and like a toy. I guess yet another example of 'they changed it (for the better), now it sucks' syndrome, eh?

^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^How many guns does the Merkava have?

6,
1 12.7 mm machine gun
2 7.62 mm machine guns
1 mortar
1 grenade launcher
and the main gun

google is your friend.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

Four or five, generally. One main gun, 2-3 remote MGs, and a 60mm mortar. Also smoke launchers, but in 40k parlance those are "vehicle wargear", not "weapons". Note also that every weapon on a Merkava is mounted on the turret for maximum field of fire, rather than the Primaris hovertanks' restrictive hull mounts, and all those weapons have distinct roles, rather than spamming as many duplicates of the same class of weapon as possible because you can magically use them all at maximum efficiency all the time.

(No, it doesn't fly under its own power, but you might be able to fit two in a C5 if you needed to get them somewhere quickly.)

Voss wrote:

Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.

Also it looks pretty derpy with the guns mounted on the forward position instead of the back, though functionally you are correct. As far as space marines go, no self respecting space marine would use the side door of a land raider! ABC Always Be Charging.

Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy

 fraser1191 wrote:
Can someone provide examples of human controlled hover tanks in scifi settings? I currently can't think of any

Don't think halo has any, or starcraft, aliens, mass effect has a singular 1 and everything else that low is treaded. My list is short but I genuinely can't think of another setting where humans had a hover tank. Command and conquer?

I'd say things like that make marines more set apart from the Imperium, closer to Xenos in comparison to guard. Similar to what it is that they want to destroy

Exactly. Restartes are heresy. Cawl’s flying tanks are almost as ridiculous as flying restartes with auto cannons. All evidence of GW execs aiming to become Hasbro as they turned space marines into GI Joe. Tripe for puppies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

Exalted.

Voss wrote:

Why do people always put the guns on the back set of doors?

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.

Except mounting it on the back of the tank is the mechanically disadvantageous option when measuring from the sponson mount. You lose about 2" of range in exchange for moving the two disembarkation points forward on the vehicle, which is pretty unnessecary since the front ramp has enough space to disembark the unit except maybe on a fully loaded Crusader.

Presumably, the reason is because the instruction manual and box art illustrate it on the back. That said, guns blocking the disembarkation doors and disembarking in front of your guns in general is an idea that is definitely more silly than anything the Repulsor has going for it.


As a side note, the Land Raider also can't use the heavy bolters/assault cannons while disembarking troops because the front ramp door blocks the gun mount when opened. It's not quite as bad as the lascannon barrels physically preventing the doors from being opened or having to disembark through the fire of your guns, but in terms of poor and silly designs, the Land Raider is way worse than the Repsulor.


Personally, I really like the Repulsor Executioner. I don't like the regular one because it's got the aforementioned complaint I have with 40k tank where the fairly large and prominent turret weapon is less effective than the relatively tiny hull mount, but I do like the Executioner, because it looks pretty reasonably tank-like.

Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Ice_can wrote:That's the key here is a repulsor etc doesnt fit the idea of shock trooper/stormtroopers that Marines are ment to represent, while the landraider, Spartan and Mastadon really do.

Curious - why doesn't it, but the Land Raider does? Is it the front ramp alone?
For me, I think the Repulsor fits very nicely into what I'd want/expect - large transport capacity, good speed, ground clearance, well armed and armoured for the thick of the fight - I feel it's much more suitable than Rhinos.

Rrepulsors of both kinds make no real sense in 40k terms its a big heavy box with entirely too many small fragile looking bolt on bits to go crashing through buildings and to big and heavy to actually be anti grav like Tau or eldar.

Exactly, too big and heavy to be anti-grav like Tau or Eldar is exactly WHY they fit Space Marines so well! A Rhino doesn't look like it could plow through a wall anywhere near as well as a Repulsor could.

Repulsors are designed to work like modern tanks, except the idea of Close combat in 40k terms especially as a main purpose of troops does not have a modern military equivalent. It's close range firefights usually.
Yeah for the drive up disembark and then have shoot out the repulsor design works fine as a shock assualt vehical dude leaving one by one on multiple sides would get overwhelmed and cutdown.

The rhino isn't an assualt vehical so you generally wouldn't go crashing a rhino through walls its a apc, it's sole purpose is to move groups of troops for point a to point b relatively rested at speed with a level of protection from small arms eg lasguns and bolters maybe heavy bolters.

A Repulsor is like a king tiger tank too big and heavy for its ground pressure to stay reasonable, heck one of the storys talks about the antigrav tearing up the armour road, it's in keepingnwith the primaris design philosophy of brute force will over come any problem, make more, make bigger and ignore any reason why that would be a down side.

I think that the Gladiator looks good. It fits with the 40K Imperium Anacrho-Futuristic design theme. I understand that change is not everyone's cup of tea, but grav works for me regarding Space Marines. I think that the Lancer, in particular, looks like a mean 40K Space Marine tank with clear lineage from the Predator. As an Armour officer for some 30 years (so I ride in them I don't design them), I separate my church and state when wargaming in science fiction. I can totally accept the Leman Russ for all of its weirdness because 40K. If I was playing a wargame set in 2025 then I would expect the tanks and AFVs to look "realistic." A tank from the 40K universe? As long as it looks cool I am good with it. Subjective and not necessarily consistent, but there it is.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.

Hover and fly were not so common. Xenos had anti-grav tech mostly if at all until recently. Should not be in the imperium armory in any real numbers given the original mythology. I mean, guard used to ride actual horses. That is the state of the empire broadly speaking. So common? No. Plus, there is physics. Recoil. Actual gravity. We work with walking humanoid robots now. Hover anything remains a dream.

Ten thousand times? I am not sure how that even makes sense.

I don't think anti-grav is unreasonable for a tank.

I also don't mind the additional weapons - but one must admit they require additional automation for fire control, which means these vehicles have some kind of Machine Spirit that the older vehicles lack (alternatively, each one operates like a Tau drone and selects its own target within its fire arc. But that's not how they play in the game, and it's impossible to know because GW won't give vehicles rules to make them work like vehicles).

 jeff white wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:^How many guns does the Merkava have?

And does it fly?

I fail to see why being a hovertank is a problem. Not only are grav vehicles not new to the Imperium, they're pretty common in 40k in general. Also, like, seriously, there are walkers, but a hover tank is a problem. Like seriously, there are walkers from the scale of Sentinels to Titans and they're accepted without question but a hover tank, which is like ten-thousand times more reasonable and isn't necessarily an active detriment to your combat vehicle by every measurable and immeasurable metric of performance, isn't.

Theoretically, a Merkava or Bradley 40000 years from now might be built with antigrav technology.

Hover and fly were not so common. Xenos had anti-grav tech mostly if at all until recently. Should not be in the imperium armory in any real numbers given the original mythology. I mean, guard used to ride actual horses. That is the state of the empire broadly speaking. So common? No. Plus, there is physics. Recoil. Actual gravity. We work with walking humanoid robots now. Hover anything remains a dream.

Ten thousand times? I am not sure how that even makes sense.

Giant Walking Robots are in fact basically a flight of geeky entertainment, not a valid military element.

Let us say that we have a walker tank and a tracked or wheeled combat vehicle of equivalent weight and armament:
A tracked or wheeled combat vehicle has the following advantages:
The walker must support it's entire weight on one of it's footpads, the weight of the tracked vehicle is distributed across it's entire track ground contact area. This is a huge difference; a tracked tank will have much better performance in soft ground than a walker of equivalent weight. [alternatively phrased, a tracked vehicle can be heavier than a walker before it sinks into the swamp]
The walker must neccessarily be taller, since it need approximately twice the height of it's maximum obstacle crossing height for it's legs alone, with additional height above that for the torso and weapons mounts. Leg length is also fundamentally critical for speed. Thus, the front profile area of a walker is much larger than the front profile area of a tracked combat vehicle. A cursory understanding of geometry, would indicate that for the same weight, the front armor of a tracked combat vehicle can be made much thicker than that of a walker. So not only does the tracked combat vehicle have better terrain passability for it's weight and armament, it also is better protected.
Finally, a tracked combat vehicle will always be faster. Even if a fairly long-legged walker wouldn't be able to keep up with a tank travelling at speed, because the mechanical efficiency of spinning a wheel can both be done much more quickly than a set of 3 joints can be actuated back and forth and at higher speeds.

A walker has the following advantages over a tracked combat vehicle:
None. Literally none. I head you something about "but it can step up!", except this requires whatever you're stepping up onto to well, support your weight. Also, you can't step up that far. A tracked tank can ascend a steeper grade [because it's wide and flat and won't tip over on as steep an incline, and also has a higher surface area to maintain traction while climbing so it doesn't sled back, and has better torque], cross a wider trench, and still scale a 4 foot obstacle.



If we had developed hover technology [which the Imperium does and did have before, see Land Speeders and all their combat aircraft], however, there isn't actually much reason that it shouldn't be used for a tank. The only real concern would be stability when firing, but that's really a false problem, because if you ever watch real tanks firing while jumping, they basically experience no momentum change because they're so heavy compared to their shells. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it winds up working dynamically the same as a tracked vehicle, with potential improvements in speed, obstacle crossing, and maybe even terrain passability.



TL, DR: walkers have no reason to exist and are worse in every way than wheels or tracks, hover technology could reasonably be used for a tank should it be available. So the Repulsor and Gladiator is intrinsically less silly than an Imperial Knight, Dreadnought, or Sentinel.


Also, here are some more design points in the Repulsor's favor:
Door in the back vs. Door in the front. A front ramp is not only a breach in the hull that you voluntarily open and let fire in through, the troops also can't use the tank for protection while disembarking from the tank. The repulsor has it's main door in the back, which is at least an improvement over having it in the front, though this improvement is tempered by it being flanked by the engines. While the tank is expected to be stationary while unloading troops, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem, it does mean it has to wait until they're clear before moving off. Complaining about this falls into the category of "rejecting an improvement that's a massive improvement in every way because there's a tiny inconvenience"
Actual turreted gun gives better fields of fire and performance as a vehicle.
No interference between it's abilities as a tank and it's abilities as a transport. Opening the doors doesn't block any of the guns no matter how you build it.


In terms of stupid things, there are 2, and one of them is shared with the Land Raider:
Size. It's stupidly tall. but literally all warhammer tanks are stupidly tall.
The little storm bolters and ironhail stubbers sticking out of every orifice. Why are they on the back side of the turret or over the doors? I have no idea. Why does it need these at all? I also have no idea. The grenade launchers and stuff is pretty standard though, since tanks as old as WWII have had grenade launchers for discouraging infantry assaults and modern tanks have active kill systems which also look like that to shoot down incoming missiles.


TL: DR: we accept the Land Raider for it's stupid design, the Repulsor is less stupid but apparently we can't accept it?