Does anyone else wish the new Primaris tanks were treaded?

[BitsHammer]

I like the classical style more too. But the main aspect what really hurt is that silly amount of weapons on them.

 

In the old days after one reading I learned what weapons my tank has. Now I have to read all the time so that I am not forget any of those shots. And for the game itself, this firepower is not good.

Hull and turret weapons make sense.for what is basically a floating Land Raider, and adding point defense guns (or grenades if you want the launchers over the door so makes sense to allow the tank to clear the doors before they open. The replaceable grenade launcher boxes on the turrent also work for something that gets air dropped into enemy hordes so it can basically Death Blossom the horde it lands on.

 

The only weapon I'd argue gets iffy to justify is the Ironhail Stubber (or the other options that go there).

[Panzer]

What makes not much sense however is it having an array of different and redundant weapons. Why Bolters, stubbers AND grenades? They do all pretty much the same thing and it's just bothersome to roll, really. :sweat: 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I prefer grav tanks and vehicles as they are much more functional plus they look cooler.

[BitsHammer]

What makes not much sense however is it having an array of different and redundant weapons. Why Bolters, stubbers AND grenades? They do all pretty much the same thing and it's just bothersome to roll, really. :sweat:

Bolters and grenades I get. It's the stubber I will never get.

[Robbienw]

Yeah definitely.  They would look much better with treads.  The issue is they look very like normal marine tanks in hullform, so it looks like you've taken a normal marine tank, taken the treads off and slapped grav plates on.  It gives them an incomplete look. 

 

 

They dont look like they were designed as Grav tanks from the ground up like Custodes tanks do.

[Ishagu]

Lucky for all you don't have to equip the stubbers in most cases lol

 

@Robbienw

 

That's exactly what the Imperium would do. Take existing patterns of technology and amalgamate them.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Ishagu

[Dracos]

While I'd have preferred they simply went with twin-linked Onslaught Gatling Cannons, the discussion has drifted away from salt over the evolution from tread to grav so I thought I might help us get back to our roots ... Rogue Trader's Inspiration before GW lost it's sense of comedic and went all in on Grimdark.

Hey at least everyone's happy Primaris bikes still look Classic .... oh wait what's that I hear :)

Edited June 9, 2020 by Dracos

[Ishagu]

Lol I was very disappointed that they weren't hover bikes, but the models are nicer than the originals.

 

I would run them only if the rules were very good as I don't particularly like biker style units.

[Marshal Reinhard]

I for one don't get the stubber hate. I like em myself. They look more fitting as pintlemounted guns than stormbolters ever did. Them also being used everywhere I feel is a good thing, solidifies them as the vehicle lmg.

 

The only instance I can think of I don't like is the dual stubber on the impulsor, but that I think is mostly because the reuse of the large missile box feels lazy.

[BitsHammer]

While I'd have preferred they simply went with twin-linked Onslaught Gatling Cannons, the discussion has drifted away from salt over the evolution from tread to grav so I thought I might help us get back to our roots ... Rogue Trader's Inspiration before GW lost it's sense of comedic and went all in on Grimdark.

Hey at least everyone's happy Primaris bikes still look Classic .... oh wait what's that I hear :)

I'm honestly mixed on the bikers. I was hoping for jetbikes to go with the grav stuff, but I don't hate the Akira-eske design. But then I'm back to the thought that we could have had Sammael's jetbike pattern made the standard for all Marine chapters.

I for one don't get the stubber hate. I like em myself. They look more fitting as pintlemounted guns than stormbolters ever did. Them also being used everywhere I feel is a good thing, solidifies them as the vehicle lmg.

The only instance I can think of I don't like is the dual stubber on the impulsor, but that I think is mostly because the reuse of the large missile box feels lazy.

Personally I think it's just that I'm not used to Marines using Stubbers.

Heavy Bolters feel more their speed, ya know?

[Robbienw]

Stubbers feel weird because they have never been on marine stuff prior to primaris.  I think they did it to tie in with the mechanicus design connection, as Cawl is mechanicus and the Adeptus Mechanicus models are replete with stubber weapons.

[Gederas]

Eh. The lore for the Repulsor makes it out to be basically a tank without treads, as it's not floating like the Land Speeder, but is pulverizing the ground beneath it, and will pulp those unlucky sods who don't get pushed away from it's repulsor field :lol:

 

Stubbers feel weird because they have never been on marine stuff prior to primaris.  I think they did it to tie in with the mechanicus design connection, as Cawl is mechanicus and the Adeptus Mechanicus models are replete with stubber weapons.

Might be that, but I think it's actually supposed to be a logistics thing in-universe.

 

Bolters are hard to make and maintain, whereas the humble stubber is so simple and plentiful in regards to munitions, it makes for a logical choice for a pintle (read: most likely to be damaged/destroyed on a tank) weapon.

[Panzer]

I don't like stubber because Bolter are the traditional Marine light weapon so there's no reason for them to take yet another light weapon. However it's much more annoying when there's both on the same vehicle because it gives pretty much zero benefit ingame but slows down things a lot because you can't roll them together unless you take differently coloured dice.

[Ishagu]

I don't have an issue as the Stubber is long range.

 

The storm bolters are more of a close range, crowd control weapon. It's why they are positioned above doors and behind the tank.

 

The Stubber is a more accurate LMG style weapon.

[Lord_Starscream]

Eh. The lore for the Repulsor makes it out to be basically a tank without treads, as it's not floating like the Land Speeder, but is pulverizing the ground beneath it, and will pulp those unlucky sods who don't get pushed away from it's repulsor field

 

 

 

Eh. I don't have a problem with the rules. I'm purely talking about the visual. Hell, half the reason I'm annoyed is I really just dislike the look enough that it prevents me from buying more models. lol

[slitth]

I like the old and the new tanks.

Both has nice thematic look to them.

The track tanks have some heft to their look, you can almost hear and feel them charging into the enemy.

The anti grav more of a hovercraft fell to them, they would feel right at home doing beach landing or harbour assault.

 

They just need to get someone to rewrite the Codex Astartes, so all marines can get in to all vehicles.

Come on they must have some kind of seat adjustment in those things

[TheNewman]

Ironically I've always had a problem with the Land Raider because it's oriented backward, it would make a lot more sense with the low end of the lozenge track at the back of the tank. The Rhino-based tanks have a similar problem, the front of the track is at ground level so it wouldn't actually be very good at getting over obsticals.

 

If I have an issue with the Repulsor and Exetucioner it's that so many of their guns are on the turret, but not on the facing of the main gun. They should either be on a sub-turret or on the front face of the hull. ...which only bothers me because I finished painting three of the ruddy things before that occurred to me. It's not like that would be a tough conversion but I'd ruin the paint job doing it now.

Edited June 10, 2020 by TheNewman

[BitsHammer]

Ironically I've always had a problem with the Land Raider because it's oriented backward, it would make a lot more sense with the low end of the lozenge track at the back of the tank. The Rhino-based tanks have a similar problem, the front of the track is at ground level so it wouldn't actually be very good at getting over obsticals.

 

If I have an issue with the Repulsor and Exetucioner it's that so many of their guns are on the turret, but not on the facing of the main gun. They should either be on a sub-turret or on the front face of the hull. ...which only bothers me because I finished painting three of the ruddy things before that occurred to me. It's not like that would be a tough conversion but I'd ruin the paint job doing it now.

In the case of the Rhino and Land Raider I've always assumed they read the STC backwards and ended up with the design we see now.

 

As for the Repulsor, I stand by the idea behind the frag launchers on the turret is to deathblossom their way through the enemy horde when they land. 

 

And Repulsors really should get to deep strike. I mean it does it in Dark Imperium after all.

[Gederas]

Ironically I've always had a problem with the Land Raider because it's oriented backward, it would make a lot more sense with the low end of the lozenge track at the back of the tank. The Rhino-based tanks have a similar problem, the front of the track is at ground level so it wouldn't actually be very good at getting over obsticals.

 

If I have an issue with the Repulsor and Exetucioner it's that so many of their guns are on the turret, but not on the facing of the main gun. They should either be on a sub-turret or on the front face of the hull. ...which only bothers me because I finished painting three of the ruddy things before that occurred to me. It's not like that would be a tough conversion but I'd ruin the paint job doing it now.

In the case of the Rhino and Land Raider I've always assumed they read the STC backwards and ended up with the design we see now.

 

As for the Repulsor, I stand by the idea behind the frag launchers on the turret is to deathblossom their way through the enemy horde when they land. 

 

And Repulsors really should get to deep strike. I mean it does it in Dark Imperium after all.

It's even stated in the fluff in the Deathwatch Codex. Repulsors are deployed by air-dropping the damn things :lol:

[Bjorn Firewalker]

Ironically I've always had a problem with the Land Raider because it's oriented backward, it would make a lot more sense with the low end of the lozenge track at the back of the tank.

Yes! I'm not the only one to realize the Land Raider would bury its nose in the ground like a giant metal ostrich, immobilizing itself due to Games Workshop's designers inexplicably reversing the lozenge-shaped tracks designed to cross trenches in World War I!

If I have an issue with the Repulsor and Exetucioner it's that so many of their guns are on the turret, but not on the facing of the main gun. They should either be on a sub-turret or on the front face of the hull.

I agree. The Repulsor looks unfocused with the missile launchers all facing different directions.

[Bjorn Firewalker]

In the case of the Rhino and Land Raider I've always assumed they read the STC backwards and ended up with the design we see now.

That's disturbingly plausible.

As for the Repulsor, I stand by the idea behind the frag launchers on the turret is to deathblossom their way through the enemy horde when they land.

Games Workshop should just say the frag launchers are part of an Active Protection System, and either give the Repulsor an Invulnerable Save against enemy Ranged Attacks, or impose a -1 penalty to the enemy's To Hit rolls.

And Repulsors really should get to deep strike. I mean it does it in Dark Imperium after all.

I agree. Edited June 10, 2020 by Bjorn Firewalker

[Lord Blackwood]

Deep striking would make Repulsors a very interesting choice , since your effectively combat dropping a bunker  covered with guns and likely full of dangerous things. 

[Schurge]

I don't know. I'm not particularly attached to the treaded tank aesthetic, however I like Rhinos and Land Raiders better as treaded tanks then I do the Impulsor and Repulsor as hover tanks.

[BitsHammer]

 

Ironically I've always had a problem with the Land Raider because it's oriented backward, it would make a lot more sense with the low end of the lozenge track at the back of the tank. The Rhino-based tanks have a similar problem, the front of the track is at ground level so it wouldn't actually be very good at getting over obsticals.

 

If I have an issue with the Repulsor and Exetucioner it's that so many of their guns are on the turret, but not on the facing of the main gun. They should either be on a sub-turret or on the front face of the hull. ...which only bothers me because I finished painting three of the ruddy things before that occurred to me. It's not like that would be a tough conversion but I'd ruin the paint job doing it now.

In the case of the Rhino and Land Raider I've always assumed they read the STC backwards and ended up with the design we see now.

 

As for the Repulsor, I stand by the idea behind the frag launchers on the turret is to deathblossom their way through the enemy horde when they land. 

 

And Repulsors really should get to deep strike. I mean it does it in Dark Imperium after all.

It's even stated in the fluff in the Deathwatch Codex. Repulsors are deployed by air-dropping the damn things

 

If we could deep strike the grav tanks, who'd need drop pods?

[War Angel]

First born models who can’t use repulsors?

 

Drop pods are cool, but I really don’t see them coming to Primaris any time soon. Maybe one day.

 

Even then, repulsors could be a CP to deep strike, where as drop pods would just deep strike, on turn one. Then both could have merit. But without a competitive points cost, I don’t see a benefit to having pods.