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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
The Lee/Grant, same as the StuG were the result of armies needing bigger guns very fast but the industry had not figured out yet how to put them in a small turret yet
(So thy put the available guns in the hull of available vehicles to have something, as soon as development was done they were replaced)

So unless the Imperium was under pressure to design the Dorn, and than retro fitted the turret on leftovers, it makes not much sense

As I pointed out before, the Dorn isn't exactly a MBT, it's a small superheavy. It's scaled more with superheavy tanks from the WWII era.

And for a ww2 superheavy it makes even less sense to have a big frontal weakspot for a weapon that is of no use

That is not a superheavy it is just an upscaled pre-ww2 experimental failed design that was of no use during real battles

It is not even a good "not fighting but showing of power" vehicle as this is not the job of guard as Titans exist

 kodos wrote:

That is not a superheavy it is just an upscaled pre-ww2 experimental failed design that was of no use during real battles

I mean, if it is really based on the Matilda II then it being a glorified paperweight only good to bully Grot tanks is legit.

Yes, lets try to analyse 40k vehicles using real world design logic

40k vehicles have always been so dumb that the more "realistic" amounts of weapons and gubbins on the new SM vehicles make them look "out of place" in the setting!

I'm just chuffed the M6 got turned into a space tank. The chassis assault gun mockup image is super cool.

General Hobbs wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
Here, from Reddit

Hmmm. If only the plastics would have more shooting poses......I'd gladly sell my metal Kasrkin for the money to buy the plastics. I think I have around 80 to a 100 of them.

As it is, I will hopefully be able to mix in the plastic special weapons Kasrkin in.....

There are more shooting poses possible, it seems GW built their studio Kasrkin in mainly non-shooting poses. Looking at the build instructions in the set, there is between 2 to 5 build option for each of the Kasrkin bodies, quite a few Hot-Shot Lasguns shooting poses are possible, plus a couple of good ones each with Plasma/Melta/Grenade launcher.

 RustyNumber wrote:
Yes, lets try to analyse 40k vehicles using real world design logic

It is hard to not do that when nothing in the setting says that you shouldn't do that. Despite its wonky appearance, the Leman Russ and even the Rogal Dorn are just basic b*tch IRL tanks with no part that says "yeah, we are having some crazy gak here, real world design logic doesn't apply". It is just a tank with normal weapons, normal armor, normal drive taking normal fuel, and even being operated by guys pushing buttons. It just looks wonky because designing something non-wonky (or making up something that clearly invalidates real world design logic, for that matter) is hard.

Ooh look, the scale discussion again.

The models look great. Proportionally, they look far, far better than the ancient Cadian kit we've had for years. Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing. But scale has always been an issue. When the original smaller Cadians came out, Space Marines were smaller. So, in a sense... nothing has really changed?

So the scale is whack. As it always is. But the models are great. But the scale is whack. But the models are great. They really are very good.

And we can't always have everything.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 kodos wrote:

That is not a superheavy it is just an upscaled pre-ww2 experimental failed design that was of no use during real battles

I mean, if it is really based on the Matilda II then it being a glorified paperweight only good to bully Grot tanks is legit.

Not to go OT but I mean that simply isn't true. The Matilda was excellent in North Africa and only really got phased out as the Valentine was cheaper to produce.

 Dawnbringer wrote:
Here, from Reddit

Hmm... if only the photographer put the camera level with the table.

The second picture makes the plastic one look almost a head taller than the metal one.

Incidentally, does anyone know anything about the company command squads? Are they supposed to be more of an upgrad to platoon command squads (which means you can have a total of three such squads combined) or are they a separate entry?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dawnbringer wrote:
Here, from Reddit

Hmm... if only the photographer put the camera level with the table.

The second picture makes the plastic one look almost a head taller than the metal one.

Agreed, would have been nicer with the camera level and a grid behind them but it's better than nothing. I agree the plastic one appears a bit taller, but they also have their tilted head back, rather than tilted down, and are wearing a helmet. (Accepting GW seems in general to think helmets are skin tight and as thick as a balaclava, but actual helmets to add quite a bit of volume to a head).

 ekwatts wrote:
Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.

I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.

I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.

Indeed, this speaks of a deliberate redesign. I noticed right after the model reveal that the Kasrkin tunics are much longer and that the leg armour is barely visable, whereas the reverse was true on the metal models. The chest armour is also less pronouced. Overall I don't mind these changes, though I am kind of sad that the Melta and Plasma gunners don't look like this anymore:

 ekwatts wrote:
Ooh look, the scale discussion again.

The models look great. Proportionally, they look far, far better than the ancient Cadian kit we've had for years. Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing. But scale has always been an issue. When the original smaller Cadians came out, Space Marines were smaller. So, in a sense... nothing has really changed?

So the scale is whack. As it always is. But the models are great. But the scale is whack. But the models are great. They really are very good.

And we can't always have everything.

So basically you are wondering if GW miniature designers are totally inept which is bit rich but only way they would need to artificially increase size here. Models were more than big enough to details and proportions.

Based on the pictures we have seen. Will sentinels go from 60mm to 80mm bases?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.

I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.

It may not be a question of detail so much as keeping the weapons about the same size as before for bits compatibility. If they make more human proportions at the same height, the guns will look more oversized on the resulting scrawny models. Lean is not a look GW tends to go for anyway. Their people tend to be more on the bulky side to lessen the impact of oversized heads, hands and feet. So if you can't adjust weapon size or width/bulk, height is the only way left to get closer to human proportions.

 Singleton Mosby wrote:
Based on the pictures we have seen. Will sentinels go from 60mm to 80mm bases?

Based on the below picture (spoilered for size) I'd say 80mm is the new size. The Command Squad models right next to it are supposed to be on 28mm bases and their bases seem to be about a third of the Sentinel base's width.

KillerAngel wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
It's strange to me that the hull machine guns are what people don't like when they are infinitely more realistic (at least for steel-armor era tanks) than hull-mounted howitzers on an MBT.

I'd disagree, considering their location doesn't make them actual hull mounted MGs like you would typically see in a radio operator / assistant driver position. They're more like the fixed forward guns in the M2 Medium (and located in the transmission case no less).

A hull howitzer, however, was prevalent in many deployed infantry support tanks of WW2 (Char B1, M3 Medium, Stug B, Churchill MkI, etc etc).

As far as actual MBTs are concerned (Post '46), neither are used.

I'd say your examples (B1, M3 Lee/Grant) are great examples of that particular failure of that interwar era of tank design. The Stug ausf B, and other variants of self-propelled gun, whose role was support, less so, due to not being a combat tank (theoretically, though obviously the F and G were increasingly pressed into frontline antitank roles but the Stuh42 continued to be primarily infantry support).

Meanwhile, hull MG's stuck around until the 1950's (up to and including the T-54, and M47 Patton with bow machine guns) when newer designs began to use superior armor compositions than steel and any seam such as those created by any bow gun proved to be fatal weak points. Combined with stabilizers becoming standard on main guns meant that the relatively accurate bow mg was finally retired.

If the intent of this new tank is to evoke the late-war or early-postwar era, the machine guns at least fit into that design, whereas the hull howitzer does not. (imho the only part that's bad on the Dorn is the hull howitzer and sponsons; removing these failed early and interwar design choices would certainly make the Dorn look "higher tech" compared to the Russ)

But of course these are all fantasy tanks, and this new tank has a slightly more 'realistic' flavor that the ol Leman Russ...

 Geifer wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 ekwatts wrote:
Yes, they're out of scale with current space marines. Which makes me wonder if that scale increase was required to balance the better proportions of the models and the detailing.

I don't buy this as the reason. GW has no problems producing fine details on smaller models like Tau, Grots, etc, so increasing the size of baseline humans should not be necessary.

It may not be a question of detail so much as keeping the weapons about the same size as before for bits compatibility. If they make more human proportions at the same height, the guns will look more oversized on the resulting scrawny models. Lean is not a look GW tends to go for anyway. Their people tend to be more on the bulky side to lessen the impact of oversized heads, hands and feet. So if you can't adjust weapon size or width/bulk, height is the only way left to get closer to human proportions.

 Singleton Mosby wrote:
Based on the pictures we have seen. Will sentinels go from 60mm to 80mm bases?

Based on the below picture (spoilered for size) I'd say 80mm is the new size. The Command Squad models right next to it are supposed to be on 28mm bases and their bases seem to be about a third of the Sentinel base's width.

Spoiler:

Gw doen't care about bits compatibility with old kits. What you have in box is what you build.

 cuda1179 wrote:
The more I look at the Dorn, the more I have tw opinions that are quickly diverging.

I like it more and more, both as an in-universe concept, and as a model.

However, I also keep thinking more and more that it would have looked better as a Macharius with a Baneblade turret.

My thoughts exactly. Although this doesn't totally prevent the Macharius from moving to plastic like the Sicaran. Still hoping......

Still not rumours about any minimum rule for traitor guard, so I guess Id have to go cry in a corner

Definite "meh" on the new tank. It's not terrible but it has some odd design choices and I'd much rather have functioning rules for the Macharius and Malcador lines. IMO the biggest problem is that it has the primaris marine problem of GW being terrified of having empty surfaces and copy/pasting random tertiary guns onto every possible surface in their CAD program. Delete the hull and/or sponson guns, take off the ridiculous back of turret gun, and trim some of the excessive random bits and you have a decent looking tank. Still not as good as the Macharius, but I don't expect that level of quality from GW's designers these days. Vehicles are definitely not their strong point.

And yeah, historical tanks had hull cannons. They also had large hull cannons, like the demolisher cannon the Malcador, not tiny secondary cannons that are smaller than the turret gun. And definitely not fixed-mount anti-infantry cannons that you have to pivot the entire tank to aim. It looks less like a functional design and more like GW's primaris obsession with always adding more guns to the datasheet.

Have the special weapon restrictions on the Kasrkin squad been leaked yet? Got my Shadow-something box today and want to build the squad for regular 40k games.

 BrookM wrote:
Have the special weapon restrictions on the Kasrkin squad been leaked yet? Got my Shadow-something box today and want to build the squad for regular 40k games.

2 of any plus a marksman and demo. No definite answer though.

I think that if I ever want a Dorn with all weapons galore, I'd probably proxy it with this, as I much prefer this one's version of sponsons (and well, I like the general form better too ^^):



As it has multiple options for the sides, I could build it with a single side and fron sponson to proxy it:

^^^^I love those tanks where are they from^^^^

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/broadsword-superheavy-tank

and good grief the STLs are free...

So I got my Shadowvaults box yesterday, and building the Kasrkin I was wondering what the instructions are for the second Gunner with a Hot-Shot Volley gun, it appears to use the same pose as the recon-trooper, but I have no idea what left arm goes with it.

So... The dark green colour scheme did it zero favours. I am now very much in with this tank and will be getting one...

Gibblets wrote:^^^^I love those tanks where are they from^^^^

Flinty wrote:https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/broadsword-superheavy-tank

and good grief the STLs are free...

Yes, they are... and the designer's other models are also fantastic.

Where are those alternate tanks from? I don't see them on the warcom site. Photoshop?

Most importantly does the kit come with all those heads? I mean Praetorians? I never thought I'd see the day...

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Where are those alternate tanks from? I don't see them on the warcom site. Photoshop?

Most importantly does the kit come with all those heads? I mean Praetorians? I never thought I'd see the day...

They're all photoshops, like the TMNT / Lego Votann.