Repulse or Attrack, the debate of tanks and merit

[chapter master 454]

So as did occur within the 9th edition and legend discussion, a tangent did sprout as always want us fraters to do. To discuss many things in topics unfitting as details come up and preferences become shown, known and out-blown. This topic is to be an outlet for us to discuss, debate and deliberate as to the merits of the new direction that the Primaris range has taken with their armoured entourage ensemble en mass.

 

 Within my corner, a stance well regarded and considered important by many (seriously guys...still getting bell icons for people liking my latest wall of text...so it shows that it clearly resonated) is the idea that Imperial tanks should be tracked except in a few cases which I will note does not undermine out stance but instead is part of our point.

 It isn't the only grievance with the Primaris tanks ether, many take their new shapes and forms ill. The edges just don't gel with our own desires and enjoyment of the armoured style of war, this however is a place where I cannot speak except for the Repulsor, I like the Gladiator Chassis as only the lack of tracks offends me. The tanks of new are shiny and certainly bristling with more guns that would make an ork happy; 1 storm bolter, 2 storm bolter, Ironhail stubber, Fragstorm launcher. This is paired with new weapons that look the part and help remove some niggles that former weapon designs didn't fully grasp (Assault Cannons...lets be real...completely miss the point of rotating barrels!) however it will be a case to note that these tanks come with many other issues other than design, their message and intent being far from just additions. Their replacements.

 

This bring us to the question then of are they worthy replacements of designs venerable and venerated. As it stands, the comparisons are draw parallel from Repulsors to Land Raiders and Gladiator to Predator, though we lack any real comparison of Rhino nor does the Impulsor step on toes, the closest the Impulsor gets is to the Land Speeder Storm but now we have Storm Speeders...swear to Emperor if they name one a Storm Speeder Land I will 2CP stranglehold a designer!.

 So let us look at some common ground arguments. Firstly, we are the Adeptus Astartes, the Angels of Death and all round pretty chill dudes (except for Black Templar players) but we are the elite shock assault units of the Imperium, only outdone by very select groups (Custodes, Deathwatch and Grey Knights) so surely we are deserving of the best things the Imperium can offer and within that purview is commonly high tech "Sci-Fi" gimmicks such as Anti-Gravity tanks (often referred to as grav tanks). On the flip side, Marines aren't so "elite" as we would think within the universe of 40k, only afforded better gear than what the Imperial Guard get and they don't exactly start at the best of levels of gear (Flashlights. Not a hard bar to beat) and thus we are only "high tech" in comparison to other forces within the imperium at large, with other factions previously mentioned being better equipped with just reason.

 

So we come to the argument that can be summarised as such:

 

"Would Tanks like Land Raiders and Predators looked better if they were grav or would Repulsors and Gladiators look better if on tracks?"

 

To establish my point, and thus open the floor, that the Repulsor and Gladiator while new designs are clearly taking many references from the older tank designs, the bevelling of the edges to create "soft" hard edges, dotted rivets around the shell and the distinct lop-sided hexagon profile side on. Thus they have many elements that remind us of the older designs, even the headlights on the tanks are prcatically taken whole-sale. So why did they opt for these Repulsor plates instead of traditional tracks? An argument about saving plastic is instantly defeated as the repulsor plates are as numerous and heft with plastic as any tracked tank within the range so thus it comes down to purely visual design as I don't think rules influenced the design of the tank as proven by Reivers.

 

To explain my main gripe, we have to talk about what features mean visually. When you see thin; you think light and fragile. When you see bone; you think natural and grown. When you see something fly; you think light and fast. When something floats; weightless.

Those are basic explanations and don't fully encompass everything however these are rules that generally give us a good idea of things but exceptions do exist: Carbon Fibre is thin and light but extremely durable and how can boats float if made of heavy dense metals? These have their explanations but are demonstrations of the exception proving a rule (a boat float because of Buoyancy. It may be made of dense materials but the complete boat itself overall isn't actually that dense compared to the area it takes).

This is why I don't like the new Grav-tanks, as they float thus they take away from their own weight and heft. To me, anything that floats isn't a heavy duty, durable tank but a fast skimmer such as the land speeder or wave serpent. The fact it can float above the ground shows it isn't carrying any immense weight but rather lighter gear which contradicts what we are told, effectively they are having their cake and eating it in terms of design: all take and no give. Wheres the flaw in the design? What does it give up to take advantage of such technology that within the Imperium is rare to see on many units, let alone heavy duty tanks.

 

It has no weight and thus creates a visual dissonance with many because it doesn't match what we are told and it just grows from there. This tank apparently can hover above the ground thus go over units when a tracked tank can't for some reason; how come infantry can block the progress of a land raider yet not the repulsor? If the problem is grenades or other explosives then both are vulnerable as the Repulsor exposes its underside to such weapons, the weakest part of any tanks armour. If the Repulsor field is so violent how come it can traverse the top of buildings with pulverising them to the ground while a Land Raider can't barrel through the same feature? It creates the image of a tank that isn't what it says it is, ironically being a case of a tank saying it weighs more than it looks (normally we are trying to say the reverse about ourselves!).

 

Thus I do present my thoughts, feel free to agree, disagree or take the parts you agree with and reaffirm them while pointing out where you don't agree and stating your point of view instead. It may be that to you, the grav-plates just look silly (which they do to me, look like safety bumpers! bet they beep when they reverse too!) however the inverse may be true and you always thought it odd that marines didn't have grav to begin with.

So lets hear it, what do fellow fraters thinks about this most delicate topic.

(Rough night of sleep so if my writing seems a touch waxed whimsical, I apologise but it helped keep my direction at least pointed roughly where I wanted and kept me sane trying to put my point across. En garde!)

[PeteySödes]

Firstly, I'll say i think they have done a wonderful job in the design of what they set out to accomplish. The blending of Astartes and Admech designs is really well done. That said.....

 

I wholly agree with you 454. Im eager to experiment with trying to "real" them up a bit with an impulsor and try to add some perceived heft. Im a wierdo though and want to do it out for the challenge and spite though haha.

[Blindhamster]

i think repulsors (and impulsors) should have something like the old vector strike, where they automatically make attacks against units they move over - considering the first description we had of one last edition was it literally flattening an iron warrior through its repulsor fields. I agree that there is a disonance between their description and their rules at the moment.

For me I like repulsors and impulsors visually, although the former is a bit cluttered in its standard form. Equally, i'd not want a land raider to look differently either. I like most marine tanks for different reasons.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm liking the Gladiator. I think it looks cool. I do prefer tanks but I'm not too bothered and can easily suspend disbelief.

 

Not the fan of Repulsors as they seemed too busy.

[Marshal Loss]

Interesting post, thanks for the write-up.

 

I don't like any of the Primaris tanks and them being floaters is probably my biggest gripe. I much prefer the old range in visual terms. I also would have preferred that grav technology remain rare as a byproduct of mankind's lost golden age and can probably be forgiven for raising an eyebrow at the Space Marines rolling around in hordes of floating tanks.

 

As for why they did it: the same reason they made most of their Primaris design choices: they're looking to reinvent the wheel to get people to buy everything from scratch while still remaining true to what came before. Whether or not they succeeded largely comes down to perspective. That being said, at the end of the day I'm a traitor player and so don't really have a horse in this race . :P

[Evil Eye]

Grav tanks in and of themselves don't bother me, though them suddenly being mass-produced (well, as much as Astartes tech ever is) despite the Imperium's issues with grav tech is a bit odd. My big problem is that they fell into the early WW2 American tank pitfall of COVER THE THING IN GUNS. The Gladiator is pretty reasonable, only using sponsons and the turret weapon. The Impulsor likewise is pretty alright, though I'd be tempted to have only given it a pintle weapon like its older brother the Rhino. The Repulsor, however, has far too many guns. Turret main gun? Sure. Hull guns? Fine. Co-axial stubber? OK, getting a bit carried away there, also a bolter would have been better. Pintle gatling gun? Yeah, stop, you have enough guns. Missile pods? I said, enough guns. Sponsons AND rear gun? I SAID ENOUGH GUNS ARGHAGAHRH

 

I'm not sure even if it had tracks that the Repulsor would be OK. It's just too overdone.

[Redcomet]

I like the shapes of the new tanks. The Impulsors open rear deck is a bit weird but ok.

 

I don’t like the plethora of small weapons covering every mm of hull. It just looks ridiculous

[Ishagu]

The decision to give the Primaris tanks that hover achieves two distinctive objectives:

 

1: Creates an instantly recognisable, Sci-fi vehicle.

2: Creates a real distinction between the technologically sophisticated Astartes and the rest of the Imperium

 

There is nothing lightweight or agile about the Repulsor tanks. They are faster than a Landraider perhaps, but not by much. Visually I find the tank to be much better as a model. Once you actually see it on the tabletop the effect with the base and stand is very good. I do like the look of the Landraider, there's no question that it is utterly iconic, but I won't get blinded by nostalgia when judging the models.

 

From a practical perspective the new tanks are definitely better. The awful ground clearance on some of the 40k Imperium tanks is resolved with the flying vehicles. The idea that the Landraider can move around a battlefield requires more suspension of disbelief than a flying tank does. Sponson weapons look quite cool, no doubt, but again they are very impractical compared to the turret found on the Repulsors variants.

In the lore the Repulsor is a proven, superior pattern of tank. Not only can it be dropped from orbit directly into combat, but it can also traverse over bodies of water. In the book "War of Secrets" the Dark Angels used Repulsors to engage Tau forces on a water world (Poor story imo, btw, don't bother).

 

I recognise that the tanks can look busy, but I'm here to tell you that most of the clutter can be left off the model and has no impact. A lot of people aren't aware of this. All the storage at the back and the extra pintle-weapons are optional, and some of the extra weapons can be modelled shut. You can easily build a Repulsor that has no more turrets or extra bits than a regular Landraider.

 

The new Impuslor chassis does look nice, and I'm eagerly anticipating the new tanks. I see two of them flanking one of my Repulsors in an army, and will round of a solid Primaris force. I consider these new tanks to be far superior to the aged Rhino chassis kits visually.

[Snazzy]

Well, i appreciate more guns on the Primaris tanks than old ones.  It makes them feel more decisive and powerful.  As for the grav tank thing... i think the horse bolted when Primaris were churned out in the first place.  The whole "forget the promise of science" thing is less relevant when you have an entirely new force of weapons, armor and vehicles.  Tanks based on millennia old STC designs using treads makes more sense than the Ad Mech designing a new tank from the ground up.

[Ishagu]

But are they designed from the ground up? It looks to me that Cawl took proven ideas and blueprints like the Land Raider and augmented them with other tech.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I think the Gladiator and its variants look fine, I rather like those I think more than the normal Predator, although I like the Deimos predator more than either. At the same time, I think the Repulsor looks kind of dumb, and much prefer the Land Raider, which I want to be able to field with Primaris.

The profile at least of the Repulsor Executioner looks better, although it suffers from too many guns. The repulsor platform doesn't quite look right to me without a main battle tank gun.

I think it would look better centered though, the random onslaught cannon off to the side I don't like.

 

Edit: To add more directly to the topic, I am fine with some repulsor vehicles, although I prefer treads usually. However, the utter goofiness of some of the other design decisions that were made with most of the repulsor vehicles have further pushed my preference to the existing treaded vehicles.

Edited August 6, 2020 by WrathOfTheLion

[Special Officer Doofy]

The old stuff looks way better in my opinion (tracks are cooler). The only point of the new stuff is to have better rules (like fly) and make the old stuff obsolete to make new sales. You can dress it up as new technology, innovation, admech touch and the like, but in the end it's just GW making more money than they ever have before. Nothing wrong with that, but it's true.

[Fajita Fan]

Given the thread title and that Repuslor is the name of a tank I totally thought GW unveiled a tank named the Attractor today 

 

Hover tanks have always seemed silly because I never could quite get over the idea they'd have a hard time killing their momentum and what happens when they take a big kinetic hit?  Do they just slide over off into a ditch or building or each other?  

 

Tracked tanks shaped like WW1 British MK5s really help sell the futuristic anachronism of our favorite grimdark scifi setting.  I love how some of the Primaris stuff looks delightfully medieval like the Bladeguard but I dislike how the vehicles look too much like Halo.  More tracks, less hovercrap.  

[Arkhanist]

Technically speaking, Cawl's innovations are based on 30k tech - with all the lost secrets of the dark age of technology and xenos innovation that were found in the Great Crusade. So from one point of view, he's just returning the Imperium to it's height of technological prowess before the Heresy, reversing the decline and lost knowledge of the last 10,000 years from the loss of forge worlds etc. Plus a few thousand years of his own tinkering to scale it up for new designs and getting it built en-masse.

 

On that basis, making anti-grav tech more common for marines actually fits with the history of the Imperium - Arkhan Land's Speeder came about because of his STC discovery leading to relatively brute-force anti-grav tech during the Great Crusade, and there's certainly some commonality in the design language there (given the 22 year real-world gap in plastic capabilities). It's even a viable fan theory that Cawl and Arkhan Land are in fact the same person.

 

So I'm fine with the 'what if we could make a land speeder BIGGER' idea for the Repulsor, Gladiator etc. I'm just not a fan of the 'how many profiles do I need to fire this thing again??' the Repulsor chassis involves, and how cluttered it looks unless you literally leave off all optional and even mandatory weapon options. I can definitely see a Gladiator or two making it onto my bench though, once my backlog gets a bit shorter.

[Snazzy]

But are they designed from the ground up? It looks to me that Cawl took proven ideas and blueprints like the Land Raider and augmented them with other tech.

 

Then he forgot the most important part, the 2+ save.  Actually, the Shield Dome on the Impulsor is a real game changer for SM tanks.  I'm surprised it didn't make it to the Repulsor.

[Noserenda]

Im sorry OP but i bounced off that wall of needless verbosity :D 

Regards Marine tanks which i take to be the topic, I quite like the older range but the core of it definitely suffers because they were designed during Rogue Trader, where an autocannon or twin lascannons was serious firepower and they really suffer even in comparison to their cousins in the Imperial guard from second ed. Now some moves have been made over the years with upgrading predator cannons and the like but overall the designs suffer. 

I would absolutely love to see an upgraded Primaris Land raider taking in some queues from the TOG 2 for example with a beefier and more dedicated armament. 

The Primaris tanks have the opposite problem, they have too many guns, waaaaaaaay too many guns, at least until the new predator replacements which thankfully minimise the dreadful sponsons and dont add 12 pointless grenade launchers at random over the hull like the godawful repulsor. The back end of the Impulsor (? the rhino one) looks badly unfinished too which is my main problem with it, a pickup design for power armoured troops is otherwise fine.

Tracks are cool, but honestly the Primaris grav drives hit all those buttons for me, they levitate by PUNCHING THE GROUND RARRGH not like those wussy aliens with their quiet elegance and such :D  Tbh i think 40k could do with more gradients like that showing the difference between for example Tau and Eldar grav drives.

Ultimately id want an embiggened Land Raider to keep those iconic tracks but for the rest of the range? Grav punching it is :D 

[Snazzy]

Regards Marine tanks which i take to be the topic, I quite like the older range but the core of it definitely suffers because they were designed during Rogue Trader, where an autocannon or twin lascannons was serious firepower and they really suffer even in comparison to their cousins in the Imperial guard from second ed. Now some moves have been made over the years with upgrading predator cannons and the like but overall the designs suffer. 

 

I'm glad someone said it.  Weapons of the scale used on Rhino tanks are not intimidating.  Though, a standard Land Raider is still a beast on account of the number of guns. 

 

The Razorback might be worth running as a Predator replacement, seeing as how they both have TL Lascannon turret options, and the Razorback having 10 wounds makes it worth 2 VPs under Bring it Down.

[Vermintide]

For me, it's not that the anti-grav instead of treads direction is, in principle, wrong. It's just that they got the actual designs of the floaty ones... Well, they're crap aren't they. No point mincing words.

 

I can kind of see the logic. Astra Militarum tanks are the workhorses, the tracked behemoths of barely post-industrial simplicity, reliability and effectiveness, the same rugged design serving for millennia as holds true with 40k's lore and setting as a regressive, cargo-cult techno-dystopia. Meanwhile, the Space Marines, being marines from space, should presumably have some sort of vehicle capable of delivering them to the battlefield in a manner befitting their typical deployment plan. Using traditional tracked vehicles would seem to imply a more traditional, manoeuvre based warfare, not surgical orbital strikes.

 

With that said, however, the newer designs just feel, at times, a little too advanced. 40k's Space Marines have always been different from other generic space-faring, power armoured soldiers in that they embody a kind of stagnation. They're warrior monks who cruise around the galaxy in giant cathedrals; they might be genetically enhanced and highly trained, and have access to some of the most advanced technology the Imperium still commands, but they are still merely inheritors of what came before them. The visual design of the older vehicles is just much more suitably industrial.

 

Anyway... Enough rambling. Behold, and shed a tear over what could have been.

 

 

 

(Edit: The above is not my work, found it on Reddit.)

Edited August 6, 2020 by Vermintide

[chapter master 454]

Vermintide, what you show there is amazing. And it isn't tracked yet still manages to look good...hmm...I will need to evaluate what may be done to aid the design of the Chassis...maybe...just not having the derpy front plates may aid...

[Kenzaburo]

For me, it's not that the anti-grav instead of treads direction is, in principle, wrong. It's just that they got the actual designs of the floaty ones... Well, they're crap aren't they. No point mincing words.

 

I can kind of see the logic. Astra Militarum tanks are the workhorses, the tracked behemoths of barely post-industrial simplicity, reliability and effectiveness, the same rugged design serving for millennia as holds true with 40k's lore and setting as a regressive, cargo-cult techno-dystopia. Meanwhile, the Space Marines, being marines from space, should presumably have some sort of vehicle capable of delivering them to the battlefield in a manner befitting their typical deployment plan. Using traditional tracked vehicles would seem to imply a more traditional, manoeuvre based warfare, not surgical orbital strikes.

 

With that said, however, the newer designs just feel, at times, a little too advanced. 40k's Space Marines have always been different from other generic space-faring, power armoured soldiers in that they embody a kind of stagnation. They're warrior monks who cruise around the galaxy in giant cathedrals; they might be genetically enhanced and highly trained, and have access to some of the most advanced technology the Imperium still commands, but they are still merely inheritors of what came before them. The visual design of the older vehicles is just much more suitably industrial.

 

Anyway... Enough rambling. Behold, and shed a tear over what could have been.

 

 

That is pretty cool what you did there ... and still I look at that Crusader and think "damn, that's one mean-and-sexy looking beast of a tank". For some weird reason that bulky block just screams aggression imho. And here's the problem: GW already got it right - like right-right. You could improve minor details, but reinventing it was bound to screw it up from my point of view.

 

Tbh, in friendly games I just might ask to use LRs and drop pods as transports for Primaris, because them not fitting inside a Land Raider is just to stupid for me to bother with. 

[Minsc]

I don't like the look of the new grav-tanks for various reasons. (And I have plenty of Primaris-stuff, so it's not that I'm against Primaris just for the sake of it.)

My biggest issue is the "bumper cars"-vibe that the gravplates grant them, I just think it looks daft. 
In addition to this, the Impulsor just looks strange with it's open topped rear, and the Repulsor is overall simply too ... much. 

The Gladiator actually looks rather decent, and if GW ever decides to make a version with tracks (which they won't, but one can dream) then I'll get one asap. 


 

[Captain Idaho]

I'm a big Command and Conquer fan and Tiberium Wars, most notably Kane's Wrath, has a healthy mix between walkers, tracks and anti-grav vehicles. I'm okay with a mix in Marines.

 

They just have to look good. Which I would say isn't the case until the Gladiator.

[Dracos]

As far as Rules ... Reivers are the Exception to the Rule imo.

 

Keep in mind I prefer all Infantry armies but like cheap vehicles for support ... and I love the Fly rule, even in 9e.

 

Im with Evil Eye and others, Impulsor chassis is almost classic. On the other hand  ...

While I kind of liked Land Raiders, the Repusor is ugly plus, with all the guns. I HATE stubbers. Give me my stormbolters back.

 

I like Ishagu's two initial points.

 

Kenzaburo, I usually prefer RAW because it reduces arguments ... but in friendly games stupid should go out the window bring on that Land Raider my friend.

 

I would have liked Outrider jetbikes but as they are is cool. Still gives Inceptors a mission spot and doesnit step on Custodes toes.

 

Mostly . . . Hover-tanks are cool . . . Just ask Hammer's Slammers and BOLO.    If you haven't read them, do so ... now. The Power of the Machine Spirit demands it! 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Having grown up in the Deep South and driven my share of pickup trucks I adore the Impulsor.

[chapter master 454]

So I have done some digging, trying to find if anyone has converted an executioner or repulsor to have tracks instead and managed to find only one (and someone who made a shadowsword a grav-tank...it was...odd). The main take away I can say is the repulsor plates are what really just choke the design. the way they look and positioned the tank looks better without them (seeing half built ones without their plates on looked much better) not to mention some modifications just outright makes the profile more bearable.

 

Maybe the key is just to have the plates line where tracks would be and it might look good, just not all around like parking sensors!