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.
ph34r wrote: A bit of a letdown, but it's decently cool. The front machine guns on the bottom are dumb.
Fixed forward firing machine guns were all the rage at the start of seen early WWII M2 and M3 (Stuart) and M4 Sherman tanks and even the post WWII T-54
but yes they were stupid, ineffective and removed as useless (but that's not going to happen in the Imperium)
The turret is at least wide enough that the turret hatches could conceivably be out of the way of the breech recoil zone, especially on the big single gun. The bow guns make me think of the worst tank ever, though.
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
I don't hate it, but like the redone Sentinel, I question how necessary it is. I certainly prefer the Macharius to this.
And, on that subject, if that size comparison with the Russ is accurate, can we please get an IA update to change the Macharius and Malcador-based tanks to HS choices rather than Lords of War. If the Hierodule got that treatment, so should the Macharius/Malcador.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/24 19:46:06
Pyroalchi wrote: What I find interesting is that it seems (to my personal gut feeling) that while few users here say they like all of the new models, there seems to be at least something for most of them. I'm not convinced of the Sentinels and don't dig the Infantry, but the Rough Riders and the Rogal Dorn seem nice. Maybe some of you feel the same that there are some models they like and others they don't and it all averages out to an overall successful release.
Eh. Personally it reminds me of the chaos marine release. The model and rules design is crapshoot of conflicting philosophies, and the new models themselves are a grab-bag of random stuff, several of which don't feel useful, necessary or even interesting at all. And neither mesh up well with KT releases that should've functioned as heralds or tie-ins.
Can some folks find specific things they like? Sure. But the odds of no one liking anything is pretty low, so isn't much of a measure of success.
But personally, I'm underwhelmed, partly because (like the chaos codex) the ideas that I wanted to build out just aren't allowed or aren't covered by the book.
Don't hate anything, but don't really feel like spending money on it either. At the moment, 40k feels like the 'oh, that might as well exist' system, while 30K, AoS and Warcry are taunting me with things I can't buy yet.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/10/24 19:54:49
It's growing on me the more I look at it, although I'd leave off the nipple guns, and that pintle mount is either chopping bits off the top of the tank or really spoiling the driver's day...
It's what the Leman Russ would have looked like if it was designed today instead of the mid-90s.
Pyroalchi wrote: What I find interesting is that it seems (to my personal gut feeling) that while few users here say they like all of the new models, there seems to be at least something for most of them. I'm not convinced of the Sentinels and don't dig the Infantry, but the Rough Riders and the Rogal Dorn seem nice. Maybe some of you feel the same that there are some models they like and others they don't and it all averages out to an overall successful release.
I like all the new Guard stuff. If I'm honest, as someone who's bought minis from GW for decades and has been variously appreciative and critical of their design choices, I've been mostly happy with their stuff for the past few years, but this Guard release, I think I'm most satisfied with this overall. Everything looks good to me apart from the Commissar and the Castellan.
I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/24 20:31:51
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
As someone who isn't keen, I keep asking myself why didn't they just do a plastic macharius/malcador instead of designing a completely new tank that (for me) is quite meh.
And as mentioned earlier, look for 3D print alternatives to LR's and they basically look like this tank.
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog
I definitely see the appeal of the kit. Although some things are questionable, they mostly look like options.
And as someone who typically isn't a fan of buying kits that are fairly old, I love that I can get a new tank to go along with the refreshed guard. (I'm also someone who is going through the hassle of converting an exoricst to be used by my marines, instead of the standard rhino kit. Shame I started before the HH plastic one came out)
I quite like it! I'll wait to see how it works ruleswise before I decide on how many to get though. Depending on points and if it can be a tank commander it'll either be a centerpiece or make up the heavy armor core of an army.
I could totally see taking a TC one, three lemans, and a baneblade.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
Or you can just leave it off, like some of the pics show.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
Or you can just leave it off, like some of the pics show.
If you want to use it, it might be worthwhile trying to figure out a way to make it look nicer if that's what matters to you.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
As I personally like Autocannons and find the LR Exterminator the best looking LR I naturally love the twin battlecanon option (which also has the nicer gunshield).
Or you can just leave it off, like some of the pics show.
If you want to use it, it might be worthwhile trying to figure out a way to make it look nicer if that's what matters to you.
Yeah, what cole said. I'm not against it as a concept, I'm just don't like how it is done. And it should not be too hard to do something about it. Make the "gunner" kneel, modify the pintle so that the stubber points in the air, maybe exchange the stubber for a twin stubber or a multilaser (I just love multilasers), and it might look decent for my personal taste.
@ a plastic Maccharius would have been better: It would definitly have been nice as those are also beautiful tanks. I just hope they keep them as Forgeworld option.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
Put the autocannon in the hull ball mount, move the mini demo cannon / minigun to main gun coax, and run the hull stubbers/meltas as cupola mounts for the TC and loader. Seems simple enough and should make it look much better.
Definitely like the new tank design, but double main guns just don't make sense to me so I'll be running the oppressor cannon.
Togusa wrote: The more I look at it the more I think that if you remove the two front mounted stubbers, and the weirdly placed top stubber, along with the sponsons, the better the tank looks. The twin battle cannon or the single cannon with Autocannon look good. No major issues with that. And the Body of the tank looks good. It's just all the copy pasted on extra guns that look silly. And sponsons on a WW2 style tank...yuck!
All that stuff is optional at least. It looks like the only mandatory weapons are the main turret gun and the front hull gun.
Pyroalchi wrote: I might try to do something with that pintle mounted stubber in the back to make it look like something useful. Either a "real" AA machine gun or maybe it is possible to modify it so that it at least looks like you could hit something on ground level.
There does appear to be a pintle mount point on the driver's cupola.
I like parts of it but I'm getting off-brand GIJoe toy vibes.
I think I need to see it painted up in simpler Tallarn or DKoK color scheme, it's that camo green with thick edge highlights that's doing it, because it draws more attention to the over-sized feeling. Compare the highlights on the Dorn vs the sentinels.
Have I missed a detail somewhere? Is The second turret position the driver? I thought the driver would be behind the front hull vision block. Turret driving positions have apparently been Tried but they don’t work well as they either totally mess with the drivers spatial awareness as they rotate around with the turret, or they are in a hugely complicated counter rotating position.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/10/24 22:33:59
Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!
PondaNagura wrote: I like parts of it but I'm getting off-brand GIJoe toy vibes.
I think I need to see it painted up in simpler Tallarn or DKoK color scheme, it's that camo green with thick edge highlights that's doing it, because it draws more attention to the over-sized feeling. Compare the highlights on the Dorn vs the sentinels.
You have maybe just maybe made me like it.
I can see it in this sort of scheme, and it would look good I think...
Flinty wrote: Have I missed a detail somewhere? Is The second turret position the driver? I thought the driver would be behind the front hull vision block. Turret driving positions have apparently been Tried but they don’t work well as they either totally mess with the drivers spatial awareness as they rotate around with the turret, or they are in a hugely complicated counter rotating position.
Yeah, I had been saying driver, but the dude with just his head poking out is probably actually the turret gunner or spotter, with the driver down below.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/10/24 23:09:48
I don't outright dislike it, but there are several features about it that just come across as odd. I think the main issue with it is that the main chassis and the track sections aren't integrated together in the same way they are in pretty much all the other Imperial Guard tanks, instead it's like they're just stuck onto the side so you have a quite noticeable part of the hull above the tracks more so than with other tanks. Even the Baneblades tracks are integrated well. Combined with the more squashed front, rounded tracks, the small turret and the seemingly short-looking length of the vehicle overall, it comes across as more of a random assortment of sections that were made separately and stuck together afterwards rather than having been designed in a cohesive way.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/10/24 23:13:36
I have to say that I really love the Macharius and I really think that is a better "Rogal Dorn" than the Rogal Dorn itself.
Still, I think that if you cut the lateral sides of the vehicle and your rise them up a little bit and you readjust few bits there and there, you can make a very cool looking tank.
On the other hand, I think that going for a Char-B / Matilda / KV-1 / M6, it is sort of a lazy thing to do from the designers point of view, specially sticking machine guns on the front of the hull.
They re-designed the Leman Russ, but rather than piss people off / allow people to still use their old models and not buy the new one, they created a new tank?
That seems to be it, yeah.
Problem is, it's not really any better than any of the 3rd party redesigns. And there's oodles of those.
More options never hurt.
So why are we losing them left, right and centre?
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
1312 build and painted
1200 
~4100
~1660
