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.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
An AT-AT Walker has guns and transport capability as their primary functions, but is not a Land Raider.

Riiiighhht. Are AT-AT Walkers also in 40k? And do they have a defensive statline of: 16W, T8, 2+ save?

I'm not complaining about it. It's just a simple statement of fact. This unit is the LoV equivalent to a Land Raider.

I think the land fortress, if anything, should look more like the Clone Turbo Tank from Star Wars:



It's design to roll in full speed, hit like a freight train, drop off soldiers, and roll out. The Wheels need to be larger and more importantly wider. There's a reason you'll even see pickup-trucks with double-wide wheels. The Land Fortress looks like it would topple over as soon as it got a solid shot in the side.

If they wanted a big showpiece vehicle model, they should have take some sort of dump-truck like vehicle:



and then mounted either a casemate or a big gak-off artillery piece in the back. Like, clearly meant to carry something, with an alternate loadout package for military duty. Time to go to war? Crane in the cannon/casemate into the bed, clamp it down, and roll. As I've said before, mining vehicles that serve a dual purpose. (As opposed to Genestealer cult vehicles, which are mining-vehicles pressed into service as military vehicles.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.

But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.

It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.

But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.

It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.

What you're describing is a specific type of Land Raider: the Achilles. And those are even more rare than a standard Land Raider. A standard Land Raider is a heavily armoured transport with "good" firepower. And that's also what the LoV Land Fortress is, based on it's stats and abilities.

Again, I'm not complaining about the model. Like it, don't like it, that's entirely subjective. But based on its rules, it's a LoV Land Raider. It performs the same function.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

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 mean, have you seen thos Kin models and how bad they look next to the actual arworks?
It's even more pronounced on the Necrosquats where the illustration of the base guy looks amazing, and the mini looks like a kid with special need forced to wear an oversized helmet.

The 3D sculptors that GW have these days are frankly awful when you realize how often they totally botch a concept that actually looks great on paper and apparently loss the ability (or will) to do anything with proper posability.

But that's just for infantry, the blame can be put on the artist that design the blue print of the vehicles rather than the 3D sculptors when it comes to vehicles, and thos guys have literally no idea how to make realistic and practille vehicles, as the awful, AWFUL primaris vehicles have shown us.
What's that? Tracks? For sturdy tanks?
Naaaaaaah mate. I prefer flimsy and exposed antigrav generators and tiny wheels.
What? A off road attack bike should sit higher than 1 inch off the ground? Nah it will be fine.
I do love guns tho. Let's cover the gak with guns it will look cool. Let's also add my favorite thing in the entire world, roll bars!
That's so cool and practical amirit?!

What makes it worse is the well known fact that sculptors and artist are known to be able to do whatever they feel like first, and have the designers be forced to work with wtf roll off their studio, because that's a logical and healthy way to design a game, amirit?

And all thos designs shortcomings have lead to this frankly awful Land Fortress design.
They couldn't even have the side hatches double down as stairs when open while would have freed the space for the much needed forth set of wheels (I'll never let that point go, having a heavy frontline tank have the exact same wheel configuration than a scouting ATV is stupid).

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.

It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.

Until, once again, you start looking at the stats of the thing (remember it also has the Armor of Contempt ++), the fact that it has the same entry point (including the assault ramp on the front).

Hekaton Land Fortress
M10 WS6+ BS3+ T8 W16 A6 Ld9 Sv2+ 230pt
Void Armor
Transport 12

Chaos Land Raider
M10 WS6+ BS3+ T8 W16 A6 Ld9 Sv2+ 245pt
Armor of Contempt
Transport 10

Now, tell me again how the comparison to the Land Raider is misleading?
And I'm being generous here by not even talking about the weapons and how much more decked out the LF is compared to the LH. (btw, putting these two datasheet next to eachothers really hilight how bad the LR is right now, even without talking about how GW is still arbitrarily denying Primaris to use it).

Even if we pretend the SM will get the SMC update soon (don't ask why it's not there yet) and the thing will be bumped to T9 for +20pt, that thing is still largely as resistant as the Land Raider.

The funniest thing about the Hekaton is it was technically revealed over a week before the proper showing of it, and no one realized because no one expected it to just be a big Sagitaur.

So every thing with guns and can transport units is a landraider, nice to know.

 skeleton wrote:
So every thing with guns and can transport units is a landraider, nice to know.

...And with a near-identical statline.

Near identical, while accurate, might lead people to think that the armor, or toughness, or wounds, or move are different, or all of them are slightly different. It seems the only difference is two extra transport capacity.

 skeleton wrote:
So every thing with guns and can transport units is a landraider, nice to know.

Did you... did you read ANYTHING that was said, or did you just copy past that strawman just for fun?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Near identical, while accurate, might lead people to think that the armor, or toughness, or wounds, or move are different, or all of them are slightly different. It seems the only difference is two extra transport capacity.

It's the EXACT same stats until GW finally pull the same move they did for the CSM and graciously allow them to get the stat buff everyone know is coming but have to be paywalled behind the next codex, until then, this thing is a flat out better and cheaper Land Raider, cheaper, with more transport capacity and better weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Another example of thoughtless design driven by superficial look: Why would they wear a fur coat over a void armor?

"becuz scout wear cloacks right?"
Yeah, and usually its because it's camo. These ones look more like fur lined winter coats.
k

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.

But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.

It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.

Statwise its almost identical. Your fluff concept of a land raider isn't represented on the table in any way (beyond terrain rules allowing anything to move through walls), so the 'driving through walls and dumping assault troops inside fortifications' is the only thing misleading here.

They're both heavily armored (but not enough) overpriced gun platforms with transport capacity. Though the squat version has magical 'more better' guns, so it might be more worthwhile. Especially given the lack of other things to take in the 'army.'

 (HN) wrote:

 skeleton wrote:
So every thing with guns and can transport units is a landraider, nice to know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Another example of thoughtless design driven by superficial look: Why would they wear a fur coat over a void armor?

"becuz scout wear cloacks right?"
Yeah, and usually its because it's camo. These ones look more like fur lined winter coats.
k

They're fur-lined coats because they're pioneers operating alone as scouts without support from the rest of a oathband, and their coats contain protective shields and such.

And because they're clearly in a snowy environment there.

I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule

The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

They're fur-lined coats because they're pioneers operating alone as scouts without support from the rest of a oathband, and their coats contain protective shields and such.

I love how the "protective shield and such" is quickly becoming the 40k equivalent of "nanomachine son" or "it's magic".

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
And because they're clearly in a snowy environment there.

Yup, that's sadly the extend of that design decision. The artist made an arctic themed art, so he slapped arctic coat on the guys and nobody questioned if it made sens with the actual tech level of the faction, or how it would look in any other context than arctic.

 Flinty wrote:
I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule

The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.

Exactly.

If squats is the best GW can do with space dwarf concept then they really need to lower there prices like cut in half. Thinking of paying 65$ for a ten of these guys or 125$ or more for the "land fortress" is frankly embarrassing.

 Flinty wrote:
I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule

The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.

A Space suit isn't something really meant to be used in environments other than space, though?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule

The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.

A Space suit isn't something really meant to be used in environments other than space, though?

Why not? They need to be capable of maintaining a comfortable/survivable environment for the wearer when exposed to extreme heat and cold. By definition they are pressure sealed so that deals with contamination and exposure to toxins etc.

If you have worked out an armoured version, then That deals with durability. For squats, who appear to be pretty much human norm with respect to atmosphere and pressure, then a space suit will at least deal with zero atmosphere up to about 1 atmosphere of pressure. For high pressure worlds, or underwater, might need something a bit different to deal with the pressure, and whatever is used to dissipate heat.

 Flinty wrote:
Why not? They need to be capable of maintaining a comfortable/survivable environment for the wearer when exposed to extreme heat and cold. By definition they are pressure sealed so that deals with contamination and exposure to toxins etc.

Presumably using such a suit would consume energy. Why waste that when external conditions can be dealt with through a simple fur coat instead? No need to keep the suit running 24/7 when there are workarounds.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
A Space suit isn't something really meant to be used in environments other than space, though?

You... you realize that space suite have a way, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better insulation and heating system than any fur coat ever, right?
And even if they weren't, putting a coat OVER the suite wouldn't change anything. Cmon man.

It's as silly has putting a little fur had over a helmet. It makes ZERO sens.

And the coats tend to be depicted as being open, and therefore not able to achieve their supposed goal anyway.

In defense of coats, we do have entire armies dedicated to wearing clothes that only make sense in certain types of climates. Just look at the guard; Vostranns, Catachans, Steel Legion, etc. tend to look weird if you put them outside of their natural environments.

That being said, the issue is that the aforementioned guard regiments all come from places that justify those type of outfits and its a unifying theme throughout the army.

Big fur coats on some models, and then a bunch of half naked beserkers don't jive well Is it so cold that the squats need jackets? Then why are the cthonian people able to get around without them?

 GaroRobe wrote:
In defense of coats, we do have entire armies dedicated to wearing clothes that only make sense in certain types of climates. Just look at the guard; Vostranns, Catachans, Steel Legion, etc. tend to look weird if you put them outside of their natural environments.

That being said, the issue is that the aforementioned guard regiments all come from places that justify those type of outfits and its a unifying theme throughout the army.

Big fur coats on some models, and then a bunch of half naked beserkers don't jive well Is it so cold that the squats need jackets? Then why are the cthonian people able to get around without them?

I really hope there's some sort of explanation on the Cthonian Beserks because their lore sounds really poorly done with them being "brave" and "courageous" being the whole extent of their thing given so far, as if they mine in space and ocean depths shirtless.

 GaroRobe wrote:
In defense of coats, we do have entire armies dedicated to wearing clothes that only make sense in certain types of climates. Just look at the guard; Vostranns, Catachans, Steel Legion, etc. tend to look weird if you put them outside of their natural environments.

That being said, the issue is that the aforementioned guard regiments all come from places that justify those type of outfits and its a unifying theme throughout the army.

Exactly. It makes sens that a regiment based on a specific climat is geared appropriatly (and the imperium is supposed to dispatch the most appropriate regiment to the most approriate climate).

 GaroRobe wrote:
Big fur coats on some models, and then a bunch of half naked beserkers don't jive well Is it so cold that the squats need jackets? Then why are the cthonian people able to get around without them?

Exactly. The thing is all over the place.
And let me be clear here, I dont mind them having a coat over their armor, if its just part of the uniform, but as this illustration shows, it has been designed as more of a weather gear, which when used OVER a void armor makes no sens.

You can almost see the foodsteps that lead there.
"Guys, we are going to make the space dwarf. Let's pick all the WHFB trops for dwarfs, so armored dude, berserker dudes and ranger."
"Ok I'll pick the rangers, what's the pitch for thos ones?"
"Well, they need the hood, that's kinda the visual trademark of the dwarf rangers, and they often have a coat or a cloack too. They will be the explorers of the faction and have to face extrem climat."
"Okay Google, Explorer Extreme Climat. Oh, so like the guys that explored the pole? They even have hoods!"

If you hate the look of a dwarf in armor wearing a coat, there's a bunch of Space Marines wearing cloaks, tabards and more than enough cloth to qualify as a coat that you'll also want to be concerned about.

 solkan wrote:
If you hate the look of a dwarf in armor wearing a coat, there's a bunch of Space Marines wearing cloaks, tabards and more than enough cloth to qualify as a coat that you'll also want to be concerned about.

I think the difference is those are wearing them for purely cosmetic reasons. That's not the same as the Pioneers wearing winter coats.

I've been waiting for the Squats to return for decades and while these aren't perfect in everyway, they'll do. They're good enough.

I'd probably convert the Land Fortress in one of the following ways though. Done in paint so it's a bit crude.

 solkan wrote:
If you hate the look of a dwarf in armor wearing a coat, there's a bunch of Space Marines wearing cloaks, tabards and more than enough cloth to qualify as a coat that you'll also want to be concerned about.

Nice wathaboutism, always make your point stronger, amirit?

But what is your point exactly?
Some space marines wear cloaks and tabards (you forgot the loincloth smh) ie ornamental cloth so apprently that means having dwarf wear winger gear (clearly made to protect them from the weather) over their SOOPA SPACE VOID TECH (tm) armor makes sens?

K

Some people enjoy the look.
You clearly don’t-but there’s no need to be a jerk about differing tastes.

His frustration is borne of people not addressing his points. It's annoying me as well, and they ain't even my points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
His frustration is borne of people not addressing his points. It's annoying me as well, and they ain't even my points.

I know right?

Nothing against you JNAProductions, but you post, right there, is the perfect example of the problem.
I do not care if you like it or not. You do you more power etc etc etc.

What's annoying is how people like you don't seem to be able to process any criticism of some design points because "they like it".
How exactly is the fact that you may like or not the thing relevant to the point being made?

We got a Land Raider+ here with a canopy and the same wheels than a light weight recon ATV.
This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.

As for being a jerk, I'm only reflecting what's being thrown at me, and for some reason the people that "just like it" tend to be pretty upset and childish when people point out that the stuff they like may have flaws.