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.

The M3 tank laughs as your lack of imagination.

 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".

Because being able to clear the doors of enemy fire so the occupants can leave safely is kid logic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

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

Past editions?
Min/maxing the fire arc.

I'd argue point defense so the occupants can safely disembark would be the design intent.

 ClockworkZion 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".

Because being able to clear the doors of enemy fire so the occupants can leave safely is kid logic?...

"Moar guns = better!" is kid-logic. Having the capacity to put suppressive fire out in every direction by having a turret that can point in every direction looks sensible and normal. Parking a tiny mini-turret with a 90-degree arc of fire over every door looks like the tank was built in Spore by a ten-year-old.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion 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".

Because being able to clear the doors of enemy fire so the occupants can leave safely is kid logic?...

"Moar guns = better!" is kid-logic. Having the capacity to put suppressive fire out in every direction by having a turret that can point in every direction looks sensible and normal. Parking a tiny mini-turret with a 90-degree arc of fire over every door looks like the tank was built in Spore by a ten-year-old.

Who said "more = better"? I asked a question on how point defense weapons specifically set up to protect the egress or entry of the passengers in situations of heavy enemy resistance, aka where Space Marines are often deployed, is a childish design? Instead you went on a tangent about "moar" and failed to address the point. Especially since the main turret could be engaging on target, which the point defense weapons can deal with flanking threats.

Combat is a three dimensional space and the Marines tend to be deploy into the center mass of the enemy lines, meaning that they need to engage in multiple directions at the same time.

Tyel wrote:
The M3 tank laughs as your lack of imagination.

"The M3 had considerable firepower and good armor, but had serious drawbacks in its general design and shape, including a high silhouette, an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun preventing the tank from taking a hull-down position, riveted construction, and poor off-road performance."

Yup, sounds like a space marine vehicle.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The M3 tank laughs as your lack of imagination.

"The M3 had considerable firepower and good armor, but had serious drawbacks in its general design and shape, including a high silhouette, an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun preventing the tank from taking a hull-down position, riveted construction, and poor off-road performance."

Yup, sounds like a space marine vehicle.

In all fairness to the M3, it was built as an intern vehicle while they worked out problems(ie turret issues caused the hull main gun mounting) and was always intended to be replaced as soon as the M4 was ready. It was well liked by the British in North Africa and preformed well vs the German Panzer III and IV's that it faced.

*edited for grammer*

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...Who said "more = better"?...

The people designing the Repulsor?

I asked a question on how point defense weapons specifically set up to protect the egress or entry of the passengers in situations of heavy enemy resistance, aka where Space Marines are often deployed, is a childish design? Instead you went on a tangent about "moar" and failed to address the point. Especially since the main turret could be engaging on target, which the point defense weapons can deal with flanking threats.

Combat is a three dimensional space and the Marines tend to be deploy into the center mass of the enemy lines, meaning that they need to engage in multiple directions at the same time.

Wait, so the Repulsor is intelligently designed because Space Marines deliberately get individual tanks surrounded for fun?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...Who said "more = better"?...

The people designing the Repulsor?

I asked a question on how point defense weapons specifically set up to protect the egress or entry of the passengers in situations of heavy enemy resistance, aka where Space Marines are often deployed, is a childish design? Instead you went on a tangent about "moar" and failed to address the point. Especially since the main turret could be engaging on target, which the point defense weapons can deal with flanking threats.

Combat is a three dimensional space and the Marines tend to be deploy into the center mass of the enemy lines, meaning that they need to engage in multiple directions at the same time.

Wait, so the Repulsor is intelligently designed because Space Marines deliberately get individual tanks surrounded for fun?

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

In Dark Imperium while fighting Chaos Marines Repulsors are dropped much like a drop pod: directly into the enemy lines to disrupt the enemy, break fortifications and turn a single front into several smaller fronts that are easier to break and crush. This has been part of the Marine doctrine as far back as the Heresy and a method Horus himself used to great success to directly assault enemy commabd locations to break the enemy defense. Having a tank that can support that role ans defend the egress of the passengers is in line with the logic of the setting. "But it has a lot of guns!" Yeah, because it hits the dirt, lays down supressive fire from the door guns (much like how door guns are used on APCs in general), while the turret engages high priority targets. Some of the boxes on the turret are short range grenade launchers that employ a death blossom approach into a mass of the enemy, while others are smoke launchers that can create a defensive screen. Lore wise the boxes are quick and easy to replace allowing for fast re-arming after expenditure.

Basically in the context of 40k the tank is designed to fit the needs of the Astartes by acting as a force multiplier that can break heavy targets, transport personnel into the heart of the enemy, lay down suppressive fire and generally act as a cross between a Land Raider and a Drop Pod.

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.

People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

Because people don't apply the same logic to hating Primaris and the models and still want validation for their quite frankly absurd hatred/criticism they won't apply to elsewhere in the setting.

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.

People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.

I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks. Real world combat tactics kind of get tossed out the window when that gets factored in. Drop pods literally disembark Marines directly into enemy fire all the time in the lore and, excluding the Deathwind which is a drop pod full of guns or missiles, have far less fire support than what the Repuslor provides despite being deploted in the same mannwer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

Have they kept that concept cannon or has it been retconed along with alot of the other WTF early primara fluff that was nuttier than a squirrel even by 40k standards.

Can't cross rivers or marshes without sinking, can be dropped from orbit and float to the ground.

Seriously I get it's fluff but seriously GW continuity is a thing FFS atleast try.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.

People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.

I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks.

And facing guns that make that 'armor equivalent to that a battle tank' irrelevant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.

So you know its wrong, and why its wrong, but you're going to argue about it anyway?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks. Real world combat tactics kind of get tossed out the window when that gets factored in. Drop pods literally disembark Marines directly into enemy fire all the time in the lore and, excluding the Deathwind which is a drop pod full of guns or missiles, have far less fire support than what the Repuslor provides despite being deploted in the same mannwer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.

Agreed. The scale of 40k, Epic not withstanding, has all vehicles danger close to the enemy no matter how the game is setup. Tables just aren't big enough even with truncated ranges. Most games I have played allow non-super soldiers to be able to write their names in the dust and mud on a tank in 2 time-units (how ever long you think a round is) if they aren't stopped and really want to. Most armies don't field tank platoons. Those that can, tend to go tank parking lot. That's some remedial level tank combat stuff not done correctly, and 40k can't handle it. Which is fine, 40k is an infantry scale and not mention to simulate real combat in almost any way. Even in the context of the weapons available in the 41/42nd millennium.

This part of the reason I think the argument that facing for vehicles breaks down when trying to base it on realism/verisimilitude for the setting. I think it makes more sense for tank designers in 40k to ensure the armor is evenly distributed given that many designs don't seem to care about weight anyways and the enemy can literally teleport in behind your armor. That's not to say proponents for facing don't still have an argument for game play pursues to attempt for a more dynamic game where maneuver matters more. I personally don't think bringing back vehicle facings adds much given how easy not actually maneuvering on the table can be accomplished in 40k. But that's a different argument more based on preference and opinion.

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Voss wrote:

Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

That seems an odd question. Rake is clearly thinking in terms of strategy and tactics, where what you're describing is suicidal stupidity.

Also, FWIW, the Horus strategy is to teleport into the command post, past the lines of massed enemies and execute their command structure. Not to drop _into_ the lines.

"Moar guns" is memes, not actual thought of how or why somethubg is being used.

And dropping into enemy lines has been something in the lore for ages. I don't get how it's understandable with drop pods but not with a hover tank that punches the ground to float.

Dropping infantry to support an attack, especially if you drop them to disrupt enemy fire support, command elements or supply lines, is viable tactic. Too close demonstrates a lack of care about your own troops, but hey, 40k.
Putting tanks at close range negates most of the benefits of tanks, while making them vulnerable to counter attack. There is no amount of guns, whether they're mounted on doors or not, that makes putting tanks inside the mass of enemies make sense.
Inside enemy lines, ie, among cover and prepared positions) just means throwing your armor elements away. You want them able to maneuver and fire their big guns, not driving forward to bring as many small arms as possible to fire simultaneously.

People really don't drive APCs into close range and disembark troops, at least, not in a battle. One rocket and the squad is basically slurry in a can. Contrary to what warhammer teaches you, the safest place for a squad is _not_ huddling inside their transport.

I think we're negelcting one crucial difference between things done in real life war and 40k: no one running around in real life is a post human wearing armour equivilant to that of a battle tanks.

And facing guns that make that 'armor equivalent to that a battle tank' irrelevant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And before I get more "but real life" arguements: I'm a US Army combat vet who spent time deployed in Iraq in mechanized and light infantry combat units. I know how real life combat works. 40k has never reflected real life that closely and using real life as an arguement against things in 40k is fallacious at best.

So you know its wrong, and why its wrong, but you're going to argue about it anyway?

By your logic those anti-tank weapons make all vehicles in 40k just as useless.

And it's only wrong in the context of real life, something 40k doesn't abide by. Chainswords are unrealistic. Drop pods are unrealistic. Any large combat robot is unrealistic. Tyranid monsters violate the square cube law (also their feet are too small for their body mass). Space Marines having a solid rib plate is unrealistic andnwould prevent them from breathing. The entire setting runs on things that are "cool" rather than "realistic". Complaining that anything in the setting is "bad" or "stupid" or "kiddie" because it's not realistic isn't an arguement in good faith.

Like what you want to like but don't bs everyone about how realism is suddenly important over 30 years after the game launched.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...Do you think in concepts outside of memes, or is r/Grimdank your only source of 40k information?

In Dark Imperium while fighting Chaos Marines Repulsors are dropped much like a drop pod: directly into the enemy lines to disrupt the enemy, break fortifications and turn a single front into several smaller fronts that are easier to break and crush. This has been part of the Marine doctrine as far back as the Heresy and a method Horus himself used to great success to directly assault enemy commabd locations to break the enemy defense. Having a tank that can support that role ans defend the egress of the passengers is in line with the logic of the setting. "But it has a lot of guns!" Yeah, because it hits the dirt, lays down supressive fire from the door guns (much like how door guns are used on APCs in general), while the turret engages high priority targets. Some of the boxes on the turret are short range grenade launchers that employ a death blossom approach into a mass of the enemy, while others are smoke launchers that can create a defensive screen. Lore wise the boxes are quick and easy to replace allowing for fast re-arming after expenditure.

Basically in the context of 40k the tank is designed to fit the needs of the Astartes by acting as a force multiplier that can break heavy targets, transport personnel into the heart of the enemy, lay down suppressive fire and generally act as a cross between a Land Raider and a Drop Pod.

"Moar guns" was an attempt at an aesthetic description of what the Repulsor looks like to me. It's a Spore tank. The designers stapled more guns to it until its firepower stat got to the point they wanted.

You can explain that it's an in-universe adaptation to a suicidally stupid maneuver, but the "we need guns pointing in every direction so we can shoot everyone when we drop the tank on them!" explanation reads to me like Angry Marines fanfiction. I don't care whether armour tactics in 40k are realistic, I know they're not. I want them to not be a cartoon designed by a twelve-year-old whose entire knowledge of tanks comes from a vague third-hand description in the fluff booklet for a bad video game.

40k has always been a cartoon written aimed at 12 year olds though. You're like 30 years too late to claim anything about realism as a valid complaint of why things are bad.

Like I said, like what you want. It fits the setting in all the insanity the setting already brings (pairing a Land Raider with a Deathwind Drop Pod and crossing that with a Land Speeder). No one is makingg you like that. But complaining about it as not fitting in the setting or not being realistic is just a nonsense arguement.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
40k has always been a cartoon written aimed at 12 year olds though. You're like 30 years too late to claim anything about realism as a valid complaint of why things are bad.

Like I said, like what you want. It fits the setting in all the insanity the setting already brings (pairing a Land Raider with a Deathwind Drop Pod and crossing that with a Land Speeder). No one is makingg you like that. But complaining about it as not fitting in the setting or not being realistic is just a nonsense arguement.

I'm trying to complain about it looking ridiculous. I bring up real tanks because I'm trying to argue about verisimilitude (the quality of seeming real enough to not break my suspension of disbelief), not because I think it needs to be more realistic. It's not realistic, sure, doesn't need to be. It fits the Angry Marines cartoon interpretation of the setting, yay, sure, whatever floats your boat. None of that is enough to change the fact that it's stupid.

Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.

Objectively the design is stupid, we know it's stupid because we literally tried this style of design and found out that it didn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_medium_tank

"The four sponson-mounted machine guns proved to be completely unnecessary."

We very quickly learned that the way to use tanks was to keep them as far from infantry and unswept buildings as possible because they are vulnerable to being swarmed.

In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.

You're the one telling me my subjective opinion is wrong because 40k isn't supposed to be realistic.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.

Objectively the design is stupid, we know it's stupid because we literally tried this style of design and found out that it didn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_medium_tank

"The four sponson-mounted machine guns proved to be completely unnecessary."

We very quickly learned that the way to use tanks was to keep them as far from infantry and unswept buildings as possible because they are vulnerable to being swarmed.

In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.

You're using real world logic to argue about a setting that things making things bigger is the best way to show how strong they are. Real world logic doesn't apply to anything in the setting, it's all about visual impact. And the idea of a tank smashing down like a meteor, opening up a death blossom of ammunition and then unleashing post human minor demi gods wearing powered tank armour looks cool, even it it makes no damn sense in real life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.

You're the one telling me my subjective opinion is wrong because 40k isn't supposed to be realistic.

Nah, I said you can like whatever you want but pretending that realism is an objective yardstick to measure a setting where the laws of physics are treated as guidelines one a good day is fallacious at best.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Objectively it's not stupid. You're treating your subjective feelings as objective facts.

Objectively the design is stupid, we know it's stupid because we literally tried this style of design and found out that it didn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_medium_tank

"The four sponson-mounted machine guns proved to be completely unnecessary."

We very quickly learned that the way to use tanks was to keep them as far from infantry and unswept buildings as possible because they are vulnerable to being swarmed.

In 40k, if you wanted a solution to the problem of inevitably being surrounded, you'd use grenade launchers, flamers, or a series of claymores mounted near the doors to clear space in a single swift burst of fire that your super soldiers and their super reflexes can capitalize on. You wouldn't use a piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries.

If you want to go down this road you might be playing the wrong game. Bolt action or FOW may be to your liking, or gates of Antares for scifi strives for a little more realism.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You're using real world logic to argue about a setting that things making things bigger is the best way to show how strong they are. Real world logic doesn't apply to anything in the setting, it's all about visual impact. And the idea of a tank smashing down like a meteor, opening up a death blossom of ammunition and then unleashing post human minor demi gods wearing powered tank armour looks cool, even it it makes no damn sense in real life.

If you want that why not give these tanks a special rule, something like:

'On Wings of Fire: When this model arrives from reserves all units within 12" take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'

This could represent anything from the blazing engines of a drop pod scorching the landing site to sweeping fire coming from a vehicle to clear its landing area.

With that aspect covered you could then take off the extra guns, which subjectively look fething stupid, and replace them with:

'Clear the Doors: When a model or unit of models disembark from this vehicle, before you place any models, each unit within 12" of this model take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'

Model these as fragmentation projectors, read ERA bricks implanted with ball bearings, and tweak the damage numbers until they feel suitably epic.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Like what you want to like but don't bs everyone about how realism is suddenly important over 30 years after the game launched.

My point is don't dismiss people for 'memes!' when you claim to understand what their criticism is quite well. Its a pointless argument to have when you follow-up by saying you understand what the problem is.

Either/Or wrote:
If you want to go down this road you might be playing the wrong game. Bolt action or FOW may be to your liking, or gates of Antares for scifi strives for a little more realism.

Or just make things that are supposed to be cool actually cool. They used to be able to do this, I don't see why they're not able to do so now.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You're using real world logic to argue about a setting that things making things bigger is the best way to show how strong they are. Real world logic doesn't apply to anything in the setting, it's all about visual impact. And the idea of a tank smashing down like a meteor, opening up a death blossom of ammunition and then unleashing post human minor demi gods wearing powered tank armour looks cool, even it it makes no damn sense in real life.

If you want that why not give these tanks a special rule, something like:

'On Wings of Fire: When this model arrives from reserves all units within 12" take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'

This could represent anything from the blazing engines of a drop pod scorching the landing site to sweeping fire coming from a vehicle to clear its landing area.

With that aspect covered you could then take off the extra guns, which subjectively look fething stupid, and replace them with:

'Clear the Doors: When a model or unit of models disembark from this vehicle, before you place any models, each unit within 12" of this model take 3+d3 S4 AP- D1 hits.'

Model these as fragmentation projectors, read ERA bricks implanted with ball bearings, and tweak the damage numbers until they feel suitably epic.

You do know you can take Frag Launchers over the doors instead of the Storm Bolters right? Like it shows them on the website with the frag launchers:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You do know you can take Frag Launchers over the doors instead of the Storm Bolters right? Like it shows them on the website with the frag launchers:

Then why include the stupid gun options?

Also, the more I look at that the worse it gets... Why do they have three of the same weapon one in the turret and two more in the hull? Just put a better version in the turret. For that matter, why do you have a co-axial weapon, traditionally used for ranging, along side a laser weapon? Why does the person operating the minigun on the turret need to get out and expose themselves to fire when you can do a remote fire-by-wire system with 1940's technology?

These 'cool' choices aren't cool if you know even the first thing about how weapons and fighting vehicles work. My 12-year-old self who read cutaway books about military vehicles would have called this stupid.