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.

I really like the new guard vehicles. I would also put the AMX 10RC in the mix as inspiration in the hippogriff.l, and that was 1970s. There is something in the turret, and it’s had a bit of publicity through its sniping in Ukraine.

The kill team set is also lovely. The head setup on the red terror is just amazing, and the stealth guard are nice and characterful. Is this an indicator of heavy weapon teams going back to individual bases in 11th?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's the most famous and most dramatized part of it that people would recognize as being unique to WW1, meanwhile urban combat isn't unique to WW1 so that's a swing and a miss to call the combat "WW1" just because urban combat is part of the game play.

I... think I get what you're saying? But who said 40k used a WW1 warframe framework because of urban combat?

The point was that 40k was never solely WW1 coded like was said in the post I was originally replying to.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

Russ, Chimera and Baneblade, the three chassis that defined the look of armoured components of the IG are all clearly inspired by British WW1 design

Baneblade is just an embiggened interwar landship (T-35, Neubaufahrzeug, Vickers Independent), and the Chimera is a BMP-1 clone. The only 100% WWI-inspired elements in all the early IG vehicles were the sponson mounted weapons and the primitive suspension that Russ and Chimera sport.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The point was that 40k was never solely WW1 coded like was said in the post I was originally replying to.

I agree, the Imperial Guard tanks have historically been a pastiche of WW1, WW2, and early Cold War designs with some gothic and sci-fi influences pasted on.

The new designs don't strike me as a bad fit for the aesthetics of 40K, but being more one-note in their inspiration makes them feel less unique to this universe and more like 1/48 model kits with aquilas.

Is it odd that the Cadians are able to roll around Armageddon in open topped transports, while the Steel Legion were required to take the Armoured Crew Compartment upgrade because of the corrosive dust?

Don't forget the Vietnam War. Catachans and Valkyries don't quite fit into the WW1 / WW2 esthetic.


Buuuut.... I digress.


I'm hoping someone could clarify what the said about Objectives. Will they be the terrain themselves or markers on terrain?

The sound was pretty terrible last night.

Can we just agree IG are a pastiche of 20th Century Warfare in general.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
The only 100% WWI-inspired elements in all the early IG vehicles were the sponson mounted weapons and the primitive suspension that Russ and Chimera sport.

Oh, so the two distinct traits of WW1 British tank designs that differentiate them from later designs? Yeah, no big deal.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
the Chimera is a BMP-1 clone

Except for the suspension. And the frontal hull shape. And the turret placement. And the riveted armour.

Totally a clone.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can we just agree IG are a pastiche of 20th Century Warfare in general.

No.

I like the half-track, but almost wish they went with the look of a WWII German half-track instead of the American ascetic. Though, that might make certain Steel Legion cosplayers a little more on the nose, if you know what I mean.

Does anyone think they might have a quad autocannon option for the half-track at a later point? Would probably be pretty popular.

The little baby wheeled tank is cute but I do think the ones with the melta weaponry look more 40k. With a plain cannon it's just too normal.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I like the half-track, but almost wish they went with the look of a WWII German half-track instead of the American ascetic. Though, that might make certain Steel Legion cosplayers a little more on the nose, if you know what I mean.

Does anyone think they might have a quad autocannon option for the half-track at a later point? Would probably be pretty popular.

Would be cool but I feel like that would step on the toes of the Hydra a bit.

 Grimskul wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I like the half-track, but almost wish they went with the look of a WWII German half-track instead of the American ascetic. Though, that might make certain Steel Legion cosplayers a little more on the nose, if you know what I mean.

Does anyone think they might have a quad autocannon option for the half-track at a later point? Would probably be pretty popular.

Would be cool but I feel like that would step on the toes of the Hydra a bit.

Stepping on toes is not a major concern of GW's design ethos.

Especially Tau... since they don't have toes.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Especially Tau... since they don't have toes.

How do they walk, if they don't have toes?

Hooves. They have hooves.

Except the odd Ethereal model, which I think was entirely deliberate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Hooves. They have hooves.

Except the odd Ethereal model, which I think was entirely deliberate.

A hoof is the tip of a toe. And Tau are just space cow people, right?

Hooves are Hooves. Feets is Feets. Pseudopods am Pseudopods.

nvm

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I'm hoping someone could clarify what the said about Objectives. Will they be the terrain themselves or markers on terrain?

They didn't really go too deep into it and it will depend on the new way missions are done, but the way it sounded is that a chosen terrain piece is the objective and being on/in it means you hold it.

It also sounded like each player maybe has their own objectives generated by their Detachments/Missions rather than them being shared.

Article says it’s defined by Terrain Footprint.

Wait…let me go find the exact wording.

Round objective markers are gone and replaced by terrain footprints to determine control of key locations, relics, or fortifications.

Yep. Footprint.

How footprint is defined we don’t yet know. Hopefully it is done so without ambiguity, even if it’s “sort it out among yourselves before setup”.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Article says it’s defined by Terrain Footprint.

Wait…let me go find the exact wording.

Round objective markers are gone and replaced by terrain footprints to determine control of key locations, relics, or fortifications.

Yep. Footprint.

How footprint is defined we don’t yet know. Hopefully it is done so without ambiguity, even if it’s “sort it out among yourselves before setup”.

In the stream it was a rectangle of printed card with some sand on.

It would be nice to see the new objective system used as an excuse for another wave of faction specific terrain, or faction specific objective sets. If there is a set of say 6 generic objectives, and each faction gets a set of three, and a player picks 3 to bring, then roll off to see who places 3 and who places 2.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I'm hoping someone could clarify what the said about Objectives. Will they be the terrain themselves or markers on terrain?

They didn't really go too deep into it and it will depend on the new way missions are done, but the way it sounded is that a chosen terrain piece is the objective and being on/in it means you hold it.

It also sounded like each player maybe has their own objectives generated by their Detachments/Missions rather than them being shared.

Kill team kind of works like this, the different teams have archetypes which each archetype having a few missions associated with it. You're then drawing a few of those and then picking which one to do.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's secondaries though.

People generally don't get very excited by the Warhammer+ animation announcements, but for me, the Aeronautica one just served as a reminder that GW produced new 8mm-scale eldar models, but then decided to drop them.

Finally getting to chime in on the reveals!

Kill Team: The return of the Red Terror looks awesome, but do we really need more Cadians?

Heresy: The ogryn look nice.

Underworlds: meh.

Age of Sigmar: *sigh* I am SO disappointed that GW decided to triple down on my absolutely least-favorite model in all of Warhammer by making it bigger, then making it dumber, then making it double. I cannot sufficiently convey the depth of my disdain for the sniper on ogre model; seeing the gunners on giants was extremely disappointing.

On the other hand, the cogfort seems really cool, and I'm already tempted to make a Tzeentch version.

40k: New Guard vehicles look nice, and I really liked the Commissar with her own tank. Not sold on the new Sister, but that Big Game Hunter looks cool. Orks set a new bar for tactical rocks!

11th Edition: I think I actually liked every single thing I heard, so I very much look forward to seeing more.

 BorderCountess wrote:
Age of Sigmar: *sigh* I am SO disappointed that GW decided to triple down on my absolutely least-favorite model in all of Warhammer by making it bigger, then making it dumber, then making it double. I cannot sufficiently convey the depth of my disdain for the sniper on ogre model; seeing the gunners on giants was extremely disappointing.

At least the size disparity makes a small amount of sense with a gargant - the ogor carrier was just too small to be expected to lug that mess on his back, even allowing for a realm-sized suspension of disbelief.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Is it odd that the Cadians are able to roll around Armageddon in open topped transports, while the Steel Legion were required to take the Armoured Crew Compartment upgrade because of the corrosive dust?

Cadians can have their roofs back when they can get Cadia back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I'm hoping someone could clarify what the said about Objectives. Will they be the terrain themselves or markers on terrain?

The sound was pretty terrible last night.

From the article posted on Warcom today:

The era of circular objective markers is over! Instead, your forces will battle over critical pieces of terrain, such as bunkers, ruins, and relics, instantly making for a more narrative and immersive game. Every battlefield looks immediately better.

Speaking of terrain, it’s now easier to hide units there before they join the battle. Many units can’t be targeted until they themselves have shot, or until the enemy has ventured very close, making them less vulnerable to a first turn alpha strike.

Sounds like we'll have to take and hold terrain if you have a control style objective for your army. Kill point based armies will get to ignore that in favor of trying to get stuck in apparently.

The army-tailoring goes beyond just the Detachments – the missions you play and your objectives in each game are determined by the selection of your army. Forces designed to take and hold ground will be rewarded for doing so, while armies that prefer to kill loads and loads of enemies will earn victories through carnage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Article says it’s defined by Terrain Footprint.

Wait…let me go find the exact wording.

Round objective markers are gone and replaced by terrain footprints to determine control of key locations, relics, or fortifications.

Yep. Footprint.

How footprint is defined we don’t yet know. Hopefully it is done so without ambiguity, even if it’s “sort it out among yourselves before setup”.

In the stream it was a rectangle of printed card with some sand on.

I assume that's supposed to be a base for said terrain, something that defines the terrain's footprint.

 catbarf wrote:

The new designs don't strike me as a bad fit for the aesthetics of 40K, but being more one-note in their inspiration makes them feel less unique to this universe and more like 1/48 model kits with aquilas.

Well articulated.

I assume the image from the stream was just a printed card game board and the square thing just some baked in terrain, not an example of an objective?

I bounces off both 9th and 10th so fingers crossed I like 11th. The endless game patches and lack of free rules is usually the biggest turnoff...

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Is it odd that the Cadians are able to roll around Armageddon in open topped transports, while the Steel Legion were required to take the Armoured Crew Compartment upgrade because of the corrosive dust?

Pretty sure the stream said there was an optional roof specifically for folks who wanted a more classic Armageddon vibe. Could be wrong, but pretty sure.

I don't think it's quite a problem of WWI vs WWII vs early Cold War, it's more that the Rogal Dorn and now the Saladin? (checks notes) Hippogryph have some curves rather than flat armor and harsh angles.

Plus these two new ones really do look like someone took a historical model and added in IG driver.

So I get it. I really like the M3A1? (checks notes) Centaur, but I may not get it all, I may just get some Bolt Action half tracks.