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.

 (HN) wrote:

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.

Your canopy-equipped, wheeled land raider equivalent exists in a setting where a guy in a flak vest and helmet has the same defense as a dude in a singlet and jaunty headscarf. And where living on high gravity worlds has the simultaneous effects of making humans short and tough, and tall and stupid.

It's remotely possible that you're looking for a higher level of internal consistency than the people dismissing your criticism. For people who have no problem with those sorts of inconsistencies and accept that things in the setting are designed the way they are simply because it looks good, it actually does 'magically nullify' your point.

If you don't like it, all well and good. Move on and let people like things they like.

 insaniak wrote:

Your canopy-equipped, wheeled land raider equivalent exists in a setting where a guy in a flak vest and helmet has the same defense as a dude in a singlet and jaunty headscarf. And where living on high gravity worlds has the simultaneous effects of making humans short and tough, and tall and stupid.

It's remotely possible that you're looking for a higher level of internal consistency than the people dismissing your criticism. For people who have no problem with those sorts of inconsistencies and accept that things in the setting are designed the way they are simply because it looks good, it actually does 'magically nullify' your point.

If you don't like it, all well and good. Move on and let people like things they like.

*sigh*
It's getting very tyring ngl.
If it's not the "it's okay because I like it", it's the very missplaced and poorly executed whataboutism and the usual "if you don't like it just go away".

Yes, I'm OBVIOUSLY looking for a higher level of internal consistency than the people dismissing my criticism, no gak sherlok! And since when exactly caring about internal consistancy is a bad thing? Wtf is going on, did we already slipped so far down the garbage pop culture drain that this is the state we are at now?

We aren't just talking about minor inconsistencies here, we aren't talking about "huur your catachan should have less armor" (and yes with the new over the top stating paradigm of 9th, they should be Sv6 and T4, S4, but that's another topic and the TLDR is that they are from an era were GW was rightfully way more conservative with their stating), we are talking about GW intentionally designing both in lore and state a Land Raider level sturdy frontline tank... with the traction of a light ATV and a giant canopy for the driver.

If thos peoples have so low expectation and respect for the coherence of the setting they are pretending to like, then good for them, but don't come and tell me "huuur if you dun lik juss move".
How about YOU, move hm? Its pretty clear that you don't really care about the setting and the topic so just take your advise and move on. I'm sure you'll find a lot of shiny stuff from Disney that you could be super fan of like Marvel of Starwars where you just looking cool is good enough to entertain you for a bit before moving to the next new thing to consume while I'll be there asking for GW to do a bit better than the hot garbage they are slowly turning their setting into?

Couldn't of said it better myself.

 (HN) wrote:

How about YOU, move hm?

I did. 40K got to a point where I realised that I wasn't enjoying the game any more, so rather than continue to gak on something that other people enjoy, I moved on to other games. I still follow the releases because a lot of the models are shiny and I still hold some residual nostalgic love for the setting... but beyond that I have better uses for my energy than endlessly complaining about something that is no longer what I want from my hobby.

I'm sure you'll find a lot of shiny stuff from Disney that you could be super fan of like Marvel of Starwars where you just looking cool is good enough to entertain you for a bit before moving to the next new thing to consume while I'll be there asking for GW to do a bit better than the hot garbage they are slowly turning their setting into?

Honestly, this comment confuses me... because 'just looking cool' is what 40K has always been about. Hence those catachan singlets. The nitty gritty of 'Is the make-believe material this vehicle's canopy is made from as tough as the imaginary armour material used for a Land Raider's hull?' has always been far more important to those arguing online than to the people actually making the game. And if the endless complaining over the last 30 years hasn't changed that, I'm not sure what impact you're expecting your complaints about it to have now. All you're doing is pissing in the pond. It doesn't actually add anything productive to the hobby, it just lessens everyone's enjoyment.

Move on.

Why are they wearing coats? Fashion sense.



I can't say that I like the idea of the Land Fortress having a statline virtually identical to the Land Raider. If it's supposed to be that well armored, then at the very least it should have tracks instead of wheels. Wheels are faster in some situations. But a vehicle with that much armor is probably designed for very hostile environments. And in those sorts of environments, tracks are generally better. But even if it had tracks, it still wouldn't look quite right. The Land Raider looks well-armored and tough. The Land Fortress... not so much.

Eumerin wrote:
The Land Raider looks well-armored and tough. The Land Fortress... not so much.

The argument can be made, though, that if what you're aiming for is something considerably more high-tech than a Land Raider, it shouldn't look equally tough. It should look more high tech. Which the Land Fortress does. The overall design is solid and well armoured. The canopy and wheels are only weak points if you discount the 'high tech' angle... ultimately, all it needs is some handwavey 'the tyres are a special practically indestructible compound and the canopies are made from transparent armorplas' or somesuch and they stop being a concern.

It's a vehicle meant to be durable. If it's higher tech with better armor, it should look tougher, and be tougher.

Dosent look tougher it's a fail


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's the 21st century' if a paper lunch bag looks tougher than a metal lunchbox from where we are sitting get rid of it and the 21st century is the only one that matters as that's the century in which we reside.

 (HN) wrote:
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.

I should apologize in case any of my remarks have come across as aggressive or rude - honestly wasn't my intention. Also, I think I misunderstood your earlier comparison of the land fortress to the land raider. I assumed you were comparing their fluff, not their statistics, which are indeed more or less the same. Honestly, I kind of think that this might be evidence more of the limited design space of the 40k rule set? Most big ground vehicles will start to look like land raiders (or monoliths) once you give them a chunky stat line and some large guns. But you're definitely right that they're much the same in that regard.

...I still like it, lol :p Not so much in the cream and teal scheme, but definitely in one of the darker schemes I've seen. Honestly, I wonder how much improved the design would be if it just had a fully-armoured driver compartment and treads in place of the wheels? Might look much more rugged that way?

 crumby_cataphract wrote:

 (HN) wrote:
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.

I should apologize in case any of my remarks have come across as aggressive or rude - honestly wasn't my intention. Also, I think I misunderstood your earlier comparison of the land fortress to the land raider. I assumed you were comparing their fluff, not their statistics, which are indeed more or less the same. Honestly, I kind of think that this might be evidence more of the limited design space of the 40k rule set? Most big ground vehicles will start to look like land raiders (or monoliths) once you give them a chunky stat line and some large guns. But you're definitely right that they're much the same in that regard.

...I still like it, lol :p Not so much in the cream and teal scheme, but definitely in one of the darker schemes I've seen. Honestly, I wonder how much improved the design would be if it just had a fully-armoured driver compartment and treads in place of the wheels? Might look much more rugged that way?

As a very long time lurker, I made an account to praise this post. It's almost as rare as seeing somebody win the lottery for someone to admit they are wrong and to try and understand another viewpoint almost completely in opposition to their own. As for the madness that is the toy dwarf release... their looks are interesting but do not fit 40k at all. I despise when soo called artists don't even understand how their "art" works or would work. I rarely have "problems" with designs of stuff since it isn't something "real" but some designs are insulting... like the Space Marine Mario Kart, that thing took the cake, ran with it, cloned it and gobbled all of it down.

His points are easily addressed, but he doesn’t like the answers.

The whole thing that’s annoying him is the design choices made about certain things.

The bikers wearing coats and the fortress having small wheels and a bubble canopy.

They don’t make “sens” to him (FFS the word is sense!!!!). And he’s right, from a logic point of view they don’t make much sense, you can come up with all sorts of reasons why they might be there but the only reason these choices were made was out of pure aesthetics. It’s a style choice the designers made. Because these models don’t represent real soldiers or equipment. They are a fantasy and have been designed purely on looks.

Some models are designed more practically but these choices have clearly been made for the look and the look alone. He doesn’t like that. Nothing anyone says will make him accept that. Others, me included don’t mind it. It doesn’t make models objectively bad models.

The points others are trying to make are that there are similar senseless design choices all over the game. Imperial guard tanks that cannot drive, guard regiments who wear the same gear whatever environment they fight in, guns that could never work, all sorts of crap that make no SENS.

He’s made his point about these models, he doesn’t like it, it’s not unique to these models.

He says “This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.”

It’s only objectively bad design from a practical point of view, but these aren't real things that need to work, from a stylistic point of view it’s entirely subjective.

And as for being a jerk, you are just a jerk, have been in every post where anyone has a slightly different opinion from you.

And before you throw out your standard strawman and whataboutisms Internet platitudes that you rely on as an argument let’s be clear….

FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.

Just like some peoples line in the sand for their space soldiers is not wearing a helmet, yours is clearly fashion choices over armour. That’s fine but you can still be respectful of other peoples tastes and opinions.

If it's supposed to be a rugged exploratory vehicle, why is it proportioned so it'd fall over sideways the second it drives over a small bump on one side.

 Hellebore wrote:
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.

I think both the land fortress a the other transport look great but both the variants you show are an improvement.

I'm in two minds about new squats - I like the new lore, I like the nostalgia, I like about half of the models. I think the vehicles are trivially easy to fix though, if I do go in for them I'd scrape off most of the window framing (likely just leave the outer edging), and add some tube section ports to make the glass domes look more like a metal diving bell style canopy. Adding stowage and a better paint scheme than the studio previewed ones and they'll look pretty neat I think.

Andykp wrote:
FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.

TBH I'd go further and say he's still wrong. They're not designing a vehicle so practical concerns regarding vehicle design become rather impractical. They are designing a symbol that communicates a whole bunch of info about the unit and Votann as a faction. In amongst that is "heavily armoured vehicle" but the bar for communicating this is much lower than many people on this site want to believe. We have some version of this convo with every new release.

JSG wrote:

Andykp wrote:
FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.

TBH I'd go further and say he's still wrong. They're not designing a vehicle so practical concerns regarding vehicle design become rather impractical. They are designing a symbol that communicates a whole bunch of info about the unit and Votann as a faction. In amongst that is "heavily armoured vehicle" but the bar for communicating this is much lower than many people on this site want to believe. We have some version of this convo with every new release.

Exactly. Which is also why the Pioneers are wearing dusters. You can come up with practical reasons why they might wear them but that simply isn't necessary. 40k is not about practicality and never has been. It is difficult to have a discussion about this point with someone who ardently believes there has to be some logic with the designs of the Squats, or why GW are idiots and useless because they apparently don't understand logic of the individual whinging about it online.
Unfortunately with their viewpoint, it's about product design and using an aesthetic choice to make a faction recognisable. Warhammer is art, more than anything else. BUT ALL THE SQUAT UNITS LOOK DIFFERENT TO EACH OTHER - Mentlegen probably immediately. True, to show different aspects of the Leagues, because Leagues suggests a union of widely different internal factions. However, there are several key unifying aspects of their clothing/ weapons design which creates a clear image throughout. Plus, the obvious one, of them being squat.

The whole "units look different" always strikes me as a little odd because when you look at a real world army or people - people don't look the same. They have different uniforms and equipment, they have different setups depending on their role and rank. It might be slightly less now in modern times since theories on things like camouflage are fairly universal, but you go back less than 100 years and we had very widely different uniforms.

Warhammer 40K has always been a fantasy in space so the uniforms and equipment are always a touch more fantasy inspired than real world hard-science inspired.



It's fine to dislike a style choice, but practicality/reality/sense are hard things to argue in the setting when you've factions like the Imperial Guard who are wearing basically no armour and no re-breathers as standard when fighting massive aliens nad demons across varied worlds; when their mainbattle tank is basically a WW1 style tank; when the Imperium itself has access to insane resources and technology and yet won't give their front line troops any protection.

Heck this is a setting where your standard issue weapon cannot be modified otherwise you might well get shot even if modifications improve its performance.

On the coats:

It could be the void suits are designed to radiate heat. If they were stopped 100% of heat loss, the wearers body’s waste/active heat would build up and roast them. Vacuums are pretty crappy for transferring heat away. So if your void suits are designed for mining dark asteroids or clearing space hulks, you might be more concerned with shedding heat then generating it.

Hence the coat when in cold atmospheric environments Where the biting wind will suck more heat from your body than the icy void.

That’s my headcannon.

The other option is that they are a uniform/badge of office for explorers. One that they’ve earned, so wear with dwarven stubbornness and pride.

(And yes, I know if you have the tech to make a void suit, adding a heater in would be trivial.)

 Olthannon wrote:

JSG wrote:

Andykp wrote:
FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.

TBH I'd go further and say he's still wrong. They're not designing a vehicle so practical concerns regarding vehicle design become rather impractical. They are designing a symbol that communicates a whole bunch of info about the unit and Votann as a faction. In amongst that is "heavily armoured vehicle" but the bar for communicating this is much lower than many people on this site want to believe. We have some version of this convo with every new release.

Exactly. Which is also why the Pioneers are wearing dusters. You can come up with practical reasons why they might wear them but that simply isn't necessary. 40k is not about practicality and never has been. It is difficult to have a discussion about this point with someone who ardently believes there has to be some logic with the designs of the Squats, or why GW are idiots and useless because they apparently don't understand logic of the individual whinging about it online.
Unfortunately with their viewpoint, it's about product design and using an aesthetic choice to make a faction recognisable. Warhammer is art, more than anything else. BUT ALL THE SQUAT UNITS LOOK DIFFERENT TO EACH OTHER - Mentlegen probably immediately. True, to show different aspects of the Leagues, because Leagues suggests a union of widely different internal factions. However, there are several key unifying aspects of their clothing/ weapons design which creates a clear image throughout. Plus, the obvious one, of them being squat.

What is it with people so eager to defend absolutely every single about these that they can't help but add in insults aimed at someone haven't even said anything? Are you not capable of discussing things reasonably without adding any condescending remarks?

Some of the behaviour in this thread has just been absolutely pathetic.

Riiight...

So the army did not drop this weekend... maybe next one? but then again how much longer before the individual box sets and potentially a combat patrol?

Im thinking the army will be this month and the rest only next months after... sigh.

It would look better with walker-legs than wheels. Or maybe bigger wheels. Or treads like the Halo Elephant since they already ripped the Brute Chopper off for Necromunda.

 Nevelon wrote:
On the coats:

It could be the void suits are designed to radiate heat. If they were stopped 100% of heat loss, the wearers body’s waste/active heat would build up and roast them. Vacuums are pretty crappy for transferring heat away. So if your void suits are designed for mining dark asteroids or clearing space hulks, you might be more concerned with shedding heat then generating it.

Hence the coat when in cold atmospheric environments Where the biting wind will suck more heat from your body than the icy void.

That’s my headcannon.

The other option is that they are a uniform/badge of office for explorers. One that they’ve earned, so wear with dwarven stubbornness and pride.

(And yes, I know if you have the tech to make a void suit, adding a heater in would be trivial.)

Any suit operating in vacuum needs both heating and cooling capabilities, as the environment in space can change drastically in a matter of minutes (the ISS orbits the earth once every 90 minutes, that means it changes from being in direct sunlight to completely obscured every 45 minutes).

The coats do absolutely nothing and in fact would only impede the intended function of the suit, by blocking the radiative surfaces that are needed to expel the excess heat from the suits systems, not to mention add heavy fabric on top of what will already be a quite bulky and rigid suit, and fabric that is loose and can get caught, blown around etc.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
On the coats:

It could be the void suits are designed to radiate heat. If they were stopped 100% of heat loss, the wearers body’s waste/active heat would build up and roast them. Vacuums are pretty crappy for transferring heat away. So if your void suits are designed for mining dark asteroids or clearing space hulks, you might be more concerned with shedding heat then generating it.

Hence the coat when in cold atmospheric environments Where the biting wind will suck more heat from your body than the icy void.

That’s my headcannon.

The other option is that they are a uniform/badge of office for explorers. One that they’ve earned, so wear with dwarven stubbornness and pride.

(And yes, I know if you have the tech to make a void suit, adding a heater in would be trivial.)

Any suit operating in vacuum needs both heating and cooling capabilities, as the environment in space can change drastically in a matter of minutes (the ISS orbits the earth once every 90 minutes, that means it changes from being in direct sunlight to completely obscured every 45 minutes).

The coats do absolutely nothing and in fact would only impede the intended function of the suit, by blocking the radiative surfaces that are needed to expel the excess heat from the suits systems.

Camo then or heat signature diffuser, we could be here all day. Point is 40k is 40k.

Unfortunately, this is shaping up to be one of the worst ranges in 40k for me. Good thing we have new Kroot on the horizon.

I hope they wear warm coats as well

I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.

Same, regardless of the stats, lore purpose, any of it, it's going to simply topple over. One solid bump or rock and it'll flip. Especially as a combat vehicle, one solid shell or rocket, even a decent-sized grenade to the side pf the thing will topple it. if they *have* to be that size, just add another set of wheels on the outside of the first set, double them up.

*looks at ork range*
*looks at chaos range*
*looks at eldar range*

Are you guys seriously having a fight over coats and tire sizes?

 NAVARRO wrote:
Riiight...

So the army did not drop this weekend... maybe next one? but then again how much longer before the individual box sets and potentially a combat patrol?

Im thinking the army will be this month and the rest only next months after... sigh.

I lean towards it being unlikely the Squat Box shows up in the Sunday article this weekend, given the MESBG box is getting a two-week pre-order.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.

To make the body look bigger and differentiate it from the Sagitaur.