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.

In the context of the setting it's fine. I mean I wouldn't go near one of these in real life with a 10' pole, but GW has released far sillier in the same universe.

The co-axial machine gun (MG) was only used for ranging during the cold war. A ranging MG has to have the exact ballistic performance as the cannon. Co-axial MG's are used for anti infantry work. So you do not need to expend one of your limited shells on every little bunch of grunts. In WW2 tank designers wanted to remove the bow MG so that they can stow more shells but the soldiers in Europe wanted to keep the bow MG.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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.

Hey, I have a Repulsor and Repulsor Executioner. I too would have preferred not to have the auxiliary turrets. However, their existence is not incongruent with space marines or 40k. In fact, they keep the model more in line with the setting which has always been over-the-top and then a little more over. That's what the repulsor frame is equipped with, and if I had a time machine, I use it for more important things than not having unwanted guns on my grav tank models. But yes, even a little knowledge of how vehicles work reveals that pretty much all 40k vehicles are stupid. Most of the time endearingly stupid if you are a 40k fan.

In any event, the Gladiator appears to be moving away from this. Which is good right?

As for exposing themselves to fire to use the pintle mount and everything else, again; this is 40k practically nothing is done the reasonable way. Certainly when discussing space marines. That's just how the setting do. Again, that is Warhammer 40k. If want something a little more grounded, I think you could randomly pick any other sci-fi war setting and get it.

Tygre wrote:
The co-axial machine gun (MG) was only used for ranging during the cold war. A ranging MG has to have the exact ballistic performance as the cannon. Co-axial MG's are used for anti infantry work. So you do not need to expend one of your limited shells on every little bunch of grunts. In WW2 tank designers wanted to remove the bow MG so that they can stow more shells but the soldiers in Europe wanted to keep the bow MG.

Your argument for the coax would make sense if in 40k you weren't firing every gun in every shooting phase regardless of facing, range, target, etc. Also, bow MGs may have been desired by the troops in WWII but the hole through the armor and the lack of space for ammo storage/extra equipment meant they got cut in almost every modern design.

Going even further every SM weapon should be a las weapon. Those guns on the Gladiator should be some lasgun/lascannon variation. Bolters nah, give me hotshot lasguns with heavier battery packs and higher thermal tolerances.

You can make 40k cool without making it dumb. If you're going to make it dumb (or keep it dumb) your fluff should stay tongue in cheek and stay within the tone that the game debuted with. I could accept these designs if the fluff was still hammy and over the top with every bit of grim darkness mocking some part of British life or riffing off another franchise. If you want to present yourself as the all-conquering heroes of a galactic empire your models should probably match that.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
As for exposing themselves to fire to use the pintle mount and everything else, again; this is 40k practically nothing is done the reasonable way. Certainly when discussing space marines. That's just how the setting do. Again, that is Warhammer 40k. If want something a little more grounded, I think you could randomly pick any other sci-fi war setting and get it.

I enjoy some of the insanity that is 40k but I enjoyed it far more when the fluff and tone of the fiction matched with the designs. 40k can't try to be cool and edgy while still also being a stupid parody of other sci-fi franchises.

Whatever else you can say about the Gladiator, it's one of the most efficient kits I've ever seen from a gamer's perspective.

If you're willing to do a little extra work a single kit can be built modular to play as any of the three Gladiator variants or as an Impulsor, that's an enormous amount of list-building flexibility for a single kit.

It I were staring cold I'd buy four or five of them and skip the Impulsor kit altogether.

The Newman wrote:
Whatever else you can say about the Gladiator, it's one of the most efficient kits I've ever seen from a gamer's perspective.

If you're willing to do a little extra work a single kit can be built modular to play as any of the three Gladiator variants or as an Impulsor, that's an enormous amount of list-building flexibility for a single kit.

It I were staring cold I'd buy four or five of them and skip the Impulsor kit altogether.

For everything, I find offputting about this design hearing this makes me really like the kit. GW charges too much for their plastic, let alone their rules, and anything that makes the game a little easier to play is great in my book.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Whatever else you can say about the Gladiator, it's one of the most efficient kits I've ever seen from a gamer's perspective.

If you're willing to do a little extra work a single kit can be built modular to play as any of the three Gladiator variants or as an Impulsor, that's an enormous amount of list-building flexibility for a single kit.

It I were staring cold I'd buy four or five of them and skip the Impulsor kit altogether.

For everything, I find offputting about this design hearing this makes me really like the kit. GW charges too much for their plastic, let alone their rules, and anything that makes the game a little easier to play is great in my book.

It's almost exactly unlike the situation with Tyranids, where the same kit builds both the Exocrine and the Haruspex or the Zoanthropes and the Venomthropes, but there's no way to build it modular and you just wind up with a bunch of extra bits

As much as I have historically hated Primaris and still kind of do dislike them just because some of the stuff feels, dumb. I don't find it that much worse than much of what GW puts out for model kits. You need to take most of it with a grain of salt and just move on.

That said you can hate primaris stuff for correct reasons, I just don't know if the Gladiator is the reason why I would hate them. It ends up more do you like floaty space tank or tracked tank ? All the designs are a bit silly but at some point you need to just accept a games a game and leave reality at the door.

I mean you don't get these types of things with chaos vehicles and some of them are really silly strange logic defying by their very nature.

Like I hate the helldrake kit, think it sucks to try and store and transport unless you build it modular, don't know how it's supposed to actually fly at all, etc, same could be said for many of the flyers in the game that look, perplexing. It's just a game at the end of the day.

It is good to hear the gladiator is good though for getting one kit to build them all if set up right, I like the sound of that at least.

I really don't see what all the arguing is about. Loyalists have lots of options for both floaty tanks and tracked tanks. So just.....play what you like, and let other people play what they like.

Personally, I love shooting the floaty tanks off the table with my old fashioned anachronistic tracked tanks.

Exactly, live and let die.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
[
You can make 40k cool without making it dumb. If you're going to make it dumb (or keep it dumb) your fluff should stay tongue in cheek and stay within the tone that the game debuted with. I could accept these designs if the fluff was still hammy and over the top with every bit of grim darkness mocking some part of British life or riffing off another franchise. If you want to present yourself as the all-conquering heroes of a galactic empire your models should probably match that.

I think that you're missing the real joke here. And that's every gamer who takes this stuff seriously.

Everything that costs as much as w40k does becomes serious automaticly. it could be collection of bull buck leafs, and if it costs ąround 800-1000$ it would be serious.

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.

But that "suicidal stupidity" IS par for the course in 40k. So, complaining about the "strategy and tactics" of 40k, honestly just sounds like they're not interested in 40k.

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.

Heard of Drop Pods? Those things which also drop into the lines?

AnomanderRake wrote:I'm trying to complain about it looking ridiculous.

That's cool, but don't paint that as objective, because I don't think it does.

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.

But it DOES fit the verisimilitude of the setting though.

None of that is enough to change the fact that it's stupid.

Again - that's not a fact.

Canadian 5th wrote: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.

Objectively, most 40k designs are stupid. But that's 40k for you.

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.

In 40k, the "piddly gun equivalent to what a single soldier carries" ARE mini-grenade launchers in their own right.

Canadian 5th wrote: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.

Blame the Predator, or Land Raider Terminus Ultra.

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?

Why haven't I seen you complaining about pintle mounts on every other Space Marine vehicle?

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.

These "stupid" ideas are par for the course in 40k. If you want to criticise them, at least do so across the board, and not just singling out the Primaris.

Canadian 5th wrote:Going even further every SM weapon should be a las weapon. Those guns on the Gladiator should be some lasgun/lascannon variation. Bolters nah, give me hotshot lasguns with heavier battery packs and higher thermal tolerances.

Ah, so you just dislike most of 40k then. Good to know where your argument's coming from, you're just adverse to most of 40k.

40k can't try to be cool and edgy while still also being a stupid parody of other sci-fi franchises.

I disagree.

I really need to have threads like these compiled into an audio-book so I can listen to a discussion about realistic positioning of secondary weaponry on floating tanks while I paint up a giant robot that has a 6 feet klaw on one arm that can fire unguided rokkits while punching something, an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns and a heavy flamer sitting right above the double-doors of the passenger department in its belly.

 Jidmah wrote:
I really need to have threads like these compiled into an audio-book so I can listen to a discussion about realistic positioning of secondary weaponry on floating tanks while I paint up a giant robot that has a 6 feet klaw on one arm that can fire unguided rokkits while punching something, an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns and a heavy flamer sitting right above the double-doors of the passenger department in its belly.

You forgot “and the crew are angry fungi”...

 Jidmah wrote:
an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns.

This right her might be the most ork thing possibly imaginable. The only thing that would top it is if somehow it shot smaller gatling guns.

I find it funny that the Gladiator, probabl the most "conservative" of all new Primaris tank design is causing such a debate. It looks like a slightly pimper version of the Predator it's supposed to replace.

epronovost wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns.

This right her might be the most ork thing possibly imaginable. The only thing that would top it is if somehow it shot smaller gatling guns.

I find it funny that the Gladiator, probabl the most "conservative" of all new Primaris tank design is causing such a debate. It looks like a slightly pimper version of the Predator it's supposed to replace.

Well, if we're being honest, most of the discussion is actually about the Repulsors.
The gladiator was introduced and largely dropped as a discussion point until magnetizing it came up.

Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.

I'd take that bet. I could even provide you with a list of people that would.

I really need to have threads like these compiled into an audio-book so I can listen to a discussion about realistic positioning of secondary weaponry on floating tanks while I paint up a giant robot that has a 6 feet klaw on one arm that can fire unguided rokkits while punching something, an ork sitting on the other arm operating a gatling gun made up of gatling guns and a heavy flamer sitting right above the double-doors of the passenger department in its belly.

Don't forget certain Land Raider builds where the exit points for troops just happen to have you step right in front of the hull mounted las canons ...

Ah, so you just dislike most of 40k then. Good to know where your argument's coming from, you're just adverse to most of 40k.

Yeah. I mean I don't disagree that there's a ton of "sillines" in 40k, I do feel like lately there's been a certain amount of complaints that really add up to someone wanting the wrong thing out of the setting and just not realizing that they're looking in the wrong place for what they want out of a game and it's associated lore.

 Jidmah wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Nobody would complain about the repulsor if firing arcs still existed.

I'd take that bet. I could even provide you with a list of people that would.

Yeah, most of the complaints seem to be about the actual design of the models, and not their actual effectiveness, which isn't that great because most of them are overpriced. So again, I say, just play the models you like, and don't complain about someone else playing the models they like.

My issue with present-day 40k versus the products of the early oughts 40k is 100% to do with how GW sees and markets the game and the way the fluff has evolved. I have a much higher threshold for embracing an impractical but 'cool' design if the setting and marketing team aren't taking it too seriously.

Current 40k is ultra-serious, big business, and it tries to spread its fluff to be all things to all players (so long as they pain their marines the right color). It's not nearly as charming watching current GW jam poorly written gak at you when they're using the other hand to pull away multi-pose kits, fluff that matched between sources, and affordable armies.

"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?

I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.

And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.

My current complaint for models is more this need for anyone important to either be perched atop something like they need to see further past a bunch of tall people at a concert, or doing their best Captain Morgan impression. There are other ways to show power and importance than that and I wish we'd get some of that back in the sculpts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?

I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.

And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.

Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?

I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.

And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.

Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.

We have new kits with a wealth of bits, but that was honestly the only truly great thing about those old kits. I sincerely hope that Orks and Nids will see a wealth of options when they're updated.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?

I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.

And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.

My current complaint for models is more this need for anyone important to either be perched atop something like they need to see further past a bunch of tall people at a concert, or doing their best Captain Morgan impression. There are other ways to show power and importance than that and I wish we'd get some of that back in the sculpts.

Honestly if they released Primaris Mk3 armor dudes I'd throw out what I have and buy those in a heartbeat. It's silly how much better Primaris models are overall in terms of scale.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?

I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.

And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.

Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.

We have new kits with a wealth of bits, but that was honestly the only truly great thing about those old kits. I sincerely hope that Orks and Nids will see a wealth of options when they're updated.

The current 'nid line is pretty well loaded with extra bits, they really just need the remaining Finecast options brought over. Since everything else is roughly the same vintage they don't have the huge disparities in quality that exist in some of the other ranges (Finecast excepted of course).

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
"Multi-pose kits" that only had vertical sholder articulation, and only a couple of degrees of movement in the waist jount in any direction before it broke the natural body line or otherwise made the model look like they broke their spine or found a penny?

I feel like there is a level of rose tinted glasses being applied to those models in all honesty. Especially when the new models have more dynamic bodies, good arm swap options and backwards compatiblity with old model helmet options.

And maybr I'm just old, but I recall kitbashing characters with metal kits that had a single arm and maybe a backpack tops to attach to the otherwise flat and static pose.

Don't forget the piles of bits on nearly every sprue (especially true for 3.5 era CSM and Tyranids with everything from adrenal glands to extended carapace being included). Yes, the metal models always sucked, but those multipart plastics were excellent.

We have new kits with a wealth of bits, but that was honestly the only truly great thing about those old kits. I sincerely hope that Orks and Nids will see a wealth of options when they're updated.

The current 'nid line is pretty well loaded with extra bits, they really just need the remaining Finecast options brought over. Since everything else is roughly the same vintage they don't have the huge disparities in quality that exist in some of the other ranges (Finecast excepted of course).

I want them updated, if only to see some new Genestealers and fix the split faces on Gaunts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want them updated, if only to see some new Genestealers and fix the split faces on Gaunts.

Ah. So you want to glue the front & back of the head together vs left/right sides....

ccs wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I want them updated, if only to see some new Genestealers and fix the split faces on Gaunts.

Ah. So you want to glue the front & back of the head together vs left/right sides....

I was thinking they could be more like the Acolyte Hybrid heads and just be a single piece on a neck joint that way the sprue has more room for other options, or just more heads.