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.
JNAProductions wrote: Practical and 40k don’t mix well.
Look at all the people running around without helmets.
There's a galaxy of difference between a bit of rule of cool on what used to be only the characters and sergeant to help them stand out (a rule of cool that was often explained by the presence of a Iron Halo actually providing a better defense than a helmet btw), and the ridiculous state of the LoV where apparently wearing an helmet is now the exception (do the exo armour even have a helmet? I don't remember having seen one yet), and what is supposed to be their sturdiest battlefront tank, something on par with a land raider, comes with a god damn glass canopy on the front of the vehicle.
What they did with the land fortress isn't cool nor practical, it's literally them copy pasting the 3D asset of the first vehicle they made and building on top of eachother, it's lazy and silly.
It's like if a Land Raider was just a double decker Rhino, with a big wind shield on the front.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/04 00:40:20
(HN) wrote: What they did with the land fortress isn't cool nor practical, it's literally them copy pasting the 3D asset of the first vehicle they made and building on top of eachother, it's lazy and silly. It's like if a Land Raider was just a double decker Rhino, with a big wind shield on the front.
Hell, that image was so on point I had to make it, so here it is.
This is the marine equivalent of GW take on a heavy vehicle for the LoV.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/05 02:04:59
Andykp wrote: It is lovely having these friendly chats with you, you are a delight as per usual.
Please, don't try to be a smartass when you can't even follow the most basique etiquet when it comes to quoting on a forum.
Andykp wrote: So you don’t like the little wheels and the canopy. Fine.
Aight, I'll stop you right there, I know you love to do that, gaslighting and strawmaning gak, because that's apprently the only thing you can do, but that has nothing to do with what I "like".
It's about how much sens that design make. It objectively doesn't make any sens as a heavy frontline sturdy tank.
Andykp wrote: As I said before I like the little wheels. I also like the on the Sagittaur, the chunky visible chassis and roll bars.
Again, nobody care about what you like or not. This isn't about how much sens it makes for what it's supposed to do.
Except, yaknow, the part where the driver is exposed on the front of the vehicle.
Andykp wrote: Things can be sturdy with being big metal boxes, and another big metal box would be boring.
And here you have it. The unimaginative excuse from people with poor analytic skills "buh hut wuld be buring if ut muh sens".
What the feth are you even trying to say?
NOT having a canopy would be "boring"?
Having tracks would be "boring"?
Hell, even having more appropriate wheels (ie more of them, or bigger version of them) would be "boring"?
You don't make any sens, you can't do better than that and that's because you know your point is indefensible, it's yet another malformed contrarian reflex to someone actual valid criticism that clash with your total lack of processing of what's infront of your eyes outside of "hu me like it".
Andykp wrote: GW marketing also say one marine is a good as an army and imperial guard tanks can move, sometimes you have to read between the lines of the hyperbole. Maybe one day I will manage to switch my brain on long enough to be a smart and edgy as you, until the pin I’m planning an army based around the big buggies being supported by a bunch of little ones full angry space dwarfs.
And let's throw some whataboutism because why not, right?
My god you are so predictable and "boring".
Get back when you can actually make a coherent point for a change would ya?
While I honestly agree with what you say. The Votann look like garbage. I would also like to say there really is no sense being rude to the poeple who like them. Trash on the votann all you want but why be rude to someone else online?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unless they are a GW rep and if they are the bring it on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/04 04:01:59
JSG wrote: Please enlighten us on more things you know nothing about.
Please come back when you'll have something actually meaningful to say. I know what you typed sounded very clever in your head, but god damn it looks frankly stupid in reality.
(HN) wrote: What they did with the land fortress isn't cool nor practical, it's literally them copy pasting the 3D asset of the first vehicle they made and building on top of eachother, it's lazy and silly.
It's like if a Land Raider was just a double decker Rhino, with a big wind shield on the front.
Hell, that image was so on point I had to make it, so here it is.
This is the marine equivalent of GW take on a heavy vehicle for the LoV.
While I honestly agree with what you say. The Votann look like garbage. I would also like to say there really is no sense being rude to the poeple who like them. Trash on the votann all you want but why be rude to someone else online?
I'm not being rude to people who like them. People can like what they want. I'm being rude to people that will try to shut you down for not liking them like they do or deny objective reality with weird headcanon and mental gymnastic, like mr.smartass over there.
I think the land fortress looks great, I like the chunky little wheels and the canopy. It looks a little like an imaginex toy but I like that about it, it looks tough and rugged.
Whether it looks as though as a land raider or repulsor of some other vehicle, is subjective.
JNAProductions wrote: Practical and 40k don’t mix well. Look at all the people running around without helmets.
Yeah, but there's still a matter of suspension of disbelief and aesthetics. This whole idea of "it's 40k, it should be lolrandom nonsense. Why should we expect GW to actually put some work in?" is not good for the setting. The Hekaton looks a bit awkward and what is supposed to be a heavy vehicle looks fragile. It has a huge weak-point in the front and the wheels seem like they would be unable to support its weight. As some have pointed out, it looks rather toy like and over done. It's comparable to that space marine floating land raider thing, I suppose, where they just haphazardly slapped guns to it without any real thought.
It should really be larger and have tank treads. To go with the "nasa-punk" theme it should have probably looked like a Crawler, except with more armour and weapons .
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/09/04 07:12:47
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
I think something other than the bubble canopy would have given a greater sense of solidity for something titled "land fortress". Something like the more slit view port as seen on things like the Desert of Kharak base runner:
https://www.shapeways.com/forum/t/deserts-of-kharak-baserunner.46968/
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Yeah they said at the start these forces are exploratory forces so it fits that feel well, its not a battle tank it just handles a battlefield role. its going to be interesting to see what future waves bring- this wave is a very solid base with all the original elements of squats revisited. Think the next wave will have funkier stuff whenever it arrives. Apparently Pete Foley confirmed the is just the first wave at NOVA.
This brings me back to the main issue being the word fortress in the name. Fortresses don’t have glass bubbles. Rugged exploratory vehicles do. The brief fluff we have on this says it can go toe toe with the toughest vehicles and it fills the tank role in the army. Armour and weapons wise it seems pretty solid, it looks rugged and I’m happy to hand wave the canopy because it looks cool. Just as I’m happy to hand wave helmetless marines, guard tanks that can’t drive anywhere and all the other cooks stuff in the 40k models.
Seeing that printed thing you linked to makes me more glad this thing has tiny wheels, just looks more practical for a race of dwarves. And it leaves room for access hatches lower down, and it looks cute. More I see the land fortress, the more I like it.
JNAProductions wrote: Practical and 40k don’t mix well.
Look at all the people running around without helmets.
Yeah, but there's still a matter of suspension of disbelief and aesthetics. This whole idea of "it's 40k, it should be lolrandom nonsense. Why should we expect GW to actually put some work in?" is not good for the setting.
The Hekaton looks a bit awkward and what is supposed to be a heavy vehicle looks fragile. It has a huge weak-point in the front and the wheels seem like they would be unable to support its weight.
As some have pointed out, it looks rather toy like and over done. It's comparable to that space marine floating land raider thing, I suppose, where they just haphazardly slapped guns to it without any real thought.
It should really be larger and have tank treads. To go with the "nasa-punk" theme it should have probably looked like a Crawler, except with more armour and weapons .
Trouble is, those crawlers already exist as Ordinatus.
I saw the two loremaster videos on Warhammer tv, it's interesting, even if it's not perfect, but I still can't get past the design of the models. It's a shame that it seems they couldn't agree on what to make of them, they have no identity, no common theme to unite them as a collection, as an army, and are too blend, lost between space marines rip off and uninspired generic sci-fi.
There are some good models like the ones with the exoskeleton and conversion beamers for example, the lore is interesting, I don't know for the rules and gameplay as I haven't been playing this edition but...it's a shame to have such a promising new faction and to fail it that much. Could have been nice, even with such a small codex.
godardc wrote: I saw the two loremaster videos on Warhammer tv, it's interesting, even if it's not perfect, but I still can't get past the design of the models. It's a shame that it seems they couldn't agree on what to make of them, they have no identity, no common theme to unite them as a collection, as an army, and are too blend, lost between space marines rip off and uninspired generic sci-fi.
There are some good models like the ones with the exoskeleton and conversion beamers for example, the lore is interesting, I don't know for the rules and gameplay as I haven't been playing this edition but...it's a shame to have such a promising new faction and to fail it that much. Could have been nice, even with such a small codex.
I've seen people saying the "no common theme" with their models is a good thing and that it's intended, because they're a mix of different groups within Kin society. Which, sure, I understand...but I don't think that really does anything positive for their range and just makes them inconsistent.
My thoughts on the Leagues haven't changed at all since their first reveal. I like the idea, their lore is great, the artwork is very nice and full of atmosphere, but I can't help but look at several their models and think "is that really it? That's the best they could do with that idea?". They just come across as missing something.
They're still one of my new favourite armies because they're still Space Dwarfs, but it still feels like they haven't really done them justice with the model designs.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/09/04 10:39:15
godardc wrote: I saw the two loremaster videos on Warhammer tv, it's interesting, even if it's not perfect, but I still can't get past the design of the models. It's a shame that it seems they couldn't agree on what to make of them, they have no identity, no common theme to unite them as a collection, as an army, and are too blend, lost between space marines rip off and uninspired generic sci-fi.
There are some good models like the ones with the exoskeleton and conversion beamers for example, the lore is interesting, I don't know for the rules and gameplay as I haven't been playing this edition but...it's a shame to have such a promising new faction and to fail it that much. Could have been nice, even with such a small codex.
I disagree.
The overall aesthetic is gear developed from mining equipment. Not mining equipment repurposed. A deliberate, military evolution of what was originally mining equipment. So a void suit perhaps reduced in bulk to improve freedom of movement, with ballistic weave and special materials used to strengthen the most protecty bits.
It’s all geared toward aiding survival in exceptionally hostile environments, because the Deep Core is exceptionally hostile.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
This brings me back to the main issue being the word fortress in the name. Fortresses don’t have glass bubbles. Rugged exploratory vehicles do. The brief fluff we have on this says it can go toe toe with the toughest vehicles and it fills the tank role in the army. Armour and weapons wise it seems pretty solid, it looks rugged and I’m happy to hand wave the canopy because it looks cool. Just as I’m happy to hand wave helmetless marines, guard tanks that can’t drive anywhere and all the other cooks stuff in the 40k models.
Seeing that printed thing you linked to makes me more glad this thing has tiny wheels, just looks more practical for a race of dwarves. And it leaves room for access hatches lower down, and it looks cute. More I see the land fortress, the more I like it.
It's from the Homeworld prequel game. I used it as an example of the sort of no-nonsense industrial utilitarian visual look.
For me, I would have preferred a tracked land fortress. But if it had to have wheels, then something in between what we get and the giant wheels of the Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak base runner (which is meant for desert running) would be what I prefer. I still would prefer a slit viewing port rather than bubble canopy. I don't mind the bubble for the Sagitaur since it is meant to be an exploratory vehicle turned APC, but not for a "fortress".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/09/04 11:40:32
This brings me back to the main issue being the word fortress in the name. Fortresses don’t have glass bubbles. Rugged exploratory vehicles do. The brief fluff we have on this says it can go toe toe with the toughest vehicles and it fills the tank role in the army. Armour and weapons wise it seems pretty solid, it looks rugged and I’m happy to hand wave the canopy because it looks cool. Just as I’m happy to hand wave helmetless marines, guard tanks that can’t drive anywhere and all the other cooks stuff in the 40k models.
Seeing that printed thing you linked to makes me more glad this thing has tiny wheels, just looks more practical for a race of dwarves. And it leaves room for access hatches lower down, and it looks cute. More I see the land fortress, the more I like it.
It's from the Homeworld prequel game. I used it as an example of the sort of no-nonsense industrial utilitarian visual look.
For me, I would have preferred a tracked land fortress. But if it had to have wheels, then something in between what we get and the giant wheels of the Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak base runner (which is meant for desert running) would be what I prefer. I still would prefer a slit viewing port rather than bubble canopy. I don't mind the bubble for the Sagitaur since it is meant to be an exploratory vehicle turned APC, but not for a "fortress".
I can see it being a matter of time before someone makes an armoured canopy 3rd Party bit. And they might look better, I’ll wait and see. That other model looks cool, just the wheels don’t work for squats. Too tall. The bubble canopy clearly just a design based on the look, and it gives them a reason to make internal detail. I agree though, it’s fitting for a fortress. Not a lot about that model makes me think “fortress”. Still keen though.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Again, it would have been fine if that was what they wanted that thing to be (I'd still ague that even in that case it should have at at least a 4th set of wheel for balance sake and to make the thing look bigger than the sagitor), a support transport troop no too sturdy but bringing fire power and the much needed mass transport for the faction of footsloggers.
But that's not what they did. They instead made it a Land Raider.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Again, it would have been fine if that was what they wanted that thing to be (I'd still ague that even in that case it should have at at least a 4th set of wheel for balance sake and to make the thing look bigger than the sagitor), a support transport troop no too sturdy but bringing fire power and the much needed mass transport for the faction of footsloggers.
But that's not what they did. They instead made it a Land Raider.
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I find fascinating how every single one of the people "loving" thing thing seem to justify it with their headcanon interpretation of what the vehicle is supposed to be based on its look, rather than looking at what GW said about it, and how they stated the thing.
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I find fascinating how every single one of the people "loving" thing thing seem to justify it with their headcanon interpretation of what the vehicle is supposed to be based on its look, rather than looking at what GW said about it, and how they stated the thing.
Look at its datasheet. It's a land raider.
I just did now. About a third of it was cut off in the image I saw. They talk about it being an "iconic battle tank," so you're right there. That is a bizarre description for something with its form factor. But after that, they mainly just talk about its guns and transport capacity...which seems pretty far from being the same thing as a land raider. You could say something similar about command Rhinos, for instance.
Anyway, you might be right that the rule studio's vision of the vehicle is out of line with its form. But it's also all of one small paragraph of fluff. So I'm happy to go with the story that the sculptors are telling over that of the rule writers. At least the former have some obvious talent. Honestly, I don't know why GW keeps some of the hacks in the design studio on pay roll. It's definitely not for their exquisite game design or evocative prose...
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I find fascinating how every single one of the people "loving" thing thing seem to justify it with their headcanon interpretation of what the vehicle is supposed to be based on its look, rather than looking at what GW said about it, and how they stated the thing.
Look at its datasheet. It's a land raider.
I just did now. About a third of it was cut off in the image I saw. They talk about it being an "iconic battle tank," so you're right there. That is a bizarre description for something with its form factor. But after that, they mainly just talk about its guns and transport capacity...which seems pretty far from being the same thing as a land raider. You could say something similar about command Rhinos, for instance.
Anyway, you might be right that the rule studio's vision of the vehicle is out of line with its form. But it's also all of one small paragraph of fluff. So I'm happy to go with the story that the sculptors are telling over that of the rule writers. At least the former have some obvious talent. Honestly, I don't know why GW keeps some of the hacks in the design studio on pay roll. It's definitely not for their exquisite game design or evocative prose...
Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.
.
~4100
~1660
