[HH] Kratos Heavy Assault Tank

[01RTB01]

Yeah the ignorance of the forge world sculptors in particular regards tank design these days is particularly depressing given how forge world started and its a definitely turn off. Its particularly frustrating here because its so close to being decent, but the one man turret with a fixed main gun, sponsons (particularly the nipple sponsons) and the horrific shot trap of what i presume to be the sponson gunners spot next to the driver. Ick.

 

Like, sponson guns i can kinda tolerate despite how awful they are, as an aesthetic choice but it does wreck verisimilitude to be told this tank has no design flaws and near impervious armour when it so obviously does not.

Given how forge world started? You mean knocking out tanks and infantry for a dystopian made up future full of magic psykers and demons?...

 

Not sure that verisimilitude applies to this really.

 

If you nearly like it you can always convert it.

[Fire Golem]

I’m so glad I don’t know anything about tanks or guns based on reactions to some of the reveals over Warhammerfest. 

[JeffJedi]

What's the co axial weapon? An auto cannon or heavy stubber?

[01RTB01]

What's the co axial weapon? An auto cannon or heavy stubber?

Autocannon

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Yeah the ignorance of the forge world sculptors in particular regards tank design these days is particularly depressing given how forge world started and its a definitely turn off. Its particularly frustrating here because its so close to being decent, but the one man turret with a fixed main gun, sponsons (particularly the nipple sponsons)  and the horrific shot trap of what i presume to be the sponson gunners spot next to the driver. Ick.

 

Like, sponson guns i can kinda tolerate despite how awful they are, as an aesthetic choice but it does wreck verisimilitude to be told this tank has no design flaws and near impervious armour when it so obviously does not. 

You haven't seen British tank designs from before 1944, I see :P

[Doghouse]

It reminds me of the star wars Republic grav tank .

[War of the Eagle]

Im a huge WWI-WWII tank nerd and that dose nothing to damper my enjoyment of these scifi behemoths. I mean all SM tanks are riddled with shot traps and bad gun depression. But im not running a guardsmen up into CqC and saying the turret guns cant shoot me. Of course they cant but its a game.

[Noserenda]

 

Yeah the ignorance of the forge world sculptors in particular regards tank design these days is particularly depressing given how forge world started and its a definitely turn off. Its particularly frustrating here because its so close to being decent, but the one man turret with a fixed main gun, sponsons (particularly the nipple sponsons) and the horrific shot trap of what i presume to be the sponson gunners spot next to the driver. Ick.

 

Like, sponson guns i can kinda tolerate despite how awful they are, as an aesthetic choice but it does wreck verisimilitude to be told this tank has no design flaws and near impervious armour when it so obviously does not.

Given how forge world started? You mean knocking out tanks and infantry for a dystopian made up future full of magic psykers and demons?...

 

Not sure that verisimilitude applies to this really.

 

If you nearly like it you can always convert it.

 

No, just tanks, typically filling in all the holes the limited main range skipped over and certainly with a more realistic bent.

 

You cant seriously be claiming verisimilitude has no place, dont be ridiculous.

 

And no im no massively keen on rebuilding the entire hull of an expensive tank kit when it could just be better designed.

 

 

Yeah the ignorance of the forge world sculptors in particular regards tank design these days is particularly depressing given how forge world started and its a definitely turn off. Its particularly frustrating here because its so close to being decent, but the one man turret with a fixed main gun, sponsons (particularly the nipple sponsons)  and the horrific shot trap of what i presume to be the sponson gunners spot next to the driver. Ick.

 

Like, sponson guns i can kinda tolerate despite how awful they are, as an aesthetic choice but it does wreck verisimilitude to be told this tank has no design flaws and near impervious armour when it so obviously does not. 

You haven't seen British tank designs from before 1944, I see

 

Yeah youll notice they immediately dropped side sponson guns from everything when they were expected to drive over anything but a shelled flat wasteland, because they are a liability with basically no advantages. 

[Matcap86]

 

Yeah youll notice they immediately dropped side sponson guns from everything when they were expected to drive over anything but a shelled flat wasteland, because they are a liability with basically no advantages. 

 

TBF, they also didn't need to contend with being swarmed from all sides by orks/nids/etc. 

[tangoalphatwo]

I’m really diggin some of these 30k tanks. I’ve seen some other frater talking about use in 40K. Do we know if we will be able to use some for traitor legions? They seem to keep old wargwar, lore wise, and would love some of these for my Black Legion

[lansalt]

 

Why would you pay attention to actual tank design when that's not actually relevant to the setting?

You'd think that in a setting with fantasy races in space, literal hell-jumping for interstellar travel, roided out posthumans that can eat flesh and somehow extract literal memories from it, demons and a shrivelled god-dude on a throne, realistic tank design would not be expected and the lack thereof wouldn't be "astounding".

 

If I wanted realism, I'd go play one of the bajillion WW2 historicals. Complaining about lack of realism in 40k is like reading LotR and wondering why Galadriel's tax policy isn't described. The krios isn't meant to look realistic, it's meant to look sick as hell and be consistent with prior design language within the setting - a smashing success on both accounts.

 

When people complain about lack of "realism" does not mean that the setting cannot have supernatural elements, fantastic technology, use genre tropes, or have reasonable excuses in the setting to rely in anachronisms. It means that the already stablished internal rules of the universe have been broken, or that otherwise real world mundane things do not work as they should.

 

Galadriel tax policy was irrelevant to LotR's story, but how tanks look and work is relevant in a futuristic miniature wargame that echoes historic wars like WW2 in their visual language since the start with the first Land Raider. 40k is not a high fantasy setting, is a product of the late 70-80s sci-fi trend of the industrial and dirty lived-in future visually pioneered by Star Wars.

 

It makes sense for AdMech/Mechanicum vehicles to look bizarre because despite of what they may say, they're the product of a convoluted religion and culture that puts other things before just being practical and efficient.

 

Sometimes a designer can sacrifice "realism" for the rule of cool and get way with it. But that doesn't mean that that they always are sucessful. The Leman Russ may look like a 1930s death trap, but it looks like it works except for the suspension and turret size that always have been rightfully criticised. A Land Raider Phobos may have strange weapons and design for 21st century Earth, but it's real sin is the lack of ground clearance for the track wheels. Etc, etc.

[01RTB01]

 

 

Yeah the ignorance of the forge world sculptors in particular regards tank design these days is particularly depressing given how forge world started and its a definitely turn off. Its particularly frustrating here because its so close to being decent, but the one man turret with a fixed main gun, sponsons (particularly the nipple sponsons) and the horrific shot trap of what i presume to be the sponson gunners spot next to the driver. Ick.

 

Like, sponson guns i can kinda tolerate despite how awful they are, as an aesthetic choice but it does wreck verisimilitude to be told this tank has no design flaws and near impervious armour when it so obviously does not.

Given how forge world started? You mean knocking out tanks and infantry for a dystopian made up future full of magic psykers and demons?...

 

Not sure that verisimilitude applies to this really.

 

If you nearly like it you can always convert it.

 

No, just tanks, typically filling in all the holes the limited main range skipped over and certainly with a more realistic bent.

 

You cant seriously be claiming verisimilitude has no place, dont be ridiculous.

 

And no im no massively keen on rebuilding the entire hull of an expensive tank kit when it could just be better designed.

 

 

Yeah the ignorance of the forge world sculptors in particular regards tank design these days is particularly depressing given how forge world started and its a definitely turn off. Its particularly frustrating here because its so close to being decent, but the one man turret with a fixed main gun, sponsons (particularly the nipple sponsons)  and the horrific shot trap of what i presume to be the sponson gunners spot next to the driver. Ick.

 

Like, sponson guns i can kinda tolerate despite how awful they are, as an aesthetic choice but it does wreck verisimilitude to be told this tank has no design flaws and near impervious armour when it so obviously does not. 

You haven't seen British tank designs from before 1944, I see

 

Yeah youll notice they immediately dropped side sponson guns from everything when they were expected to drive over anything but a shelled flat wasteland, because they are a liability with basically no advantages. 

 

 

Yup Gobsmashas and grav tanks were super realistic. 

 

Unfortunately you're trying to apply real world logic where it was never the intent. I'm not being ridiculous but you are displaying a huge level of arrogance frater.

 

Just because your opinion is "it could be better designed" doesn't make it fact nor the designers wrong either. The whole point is that each faction has certain design cues. Otherwise surely by the 31st and 41st millenium "the perfect tank" would have been designed. It's not about perfection, if you're looking for that you're looking in the wrong area. 

 

How are the tank designs any better/ worse than 7/8 foot tall superhumans in brightly coloured armour with but a cloak for stealth? It's not supposed to be realistic it's simply a setting. If every tank brought out was "looking for perfection" then there'd be a very small model line and everything would pretty much look the same. It would be dull and boring. 

 

"their ignorance is depressing" - how about it's a choice, neither right nor wrong but simply "is"?

[Dagoth Ur]

 

 

Why would you pay attention to actual tank design when that's not actually relevant to the setting?

You'd think that in a setting with fantasy races in space, literal hell-jumping for interstellar travel, roided out posthumans that can eat flesh and somehow extract literal memories from it, demons and a shrivelled god-dude on a throne, realistic tank design would not be expected and the lack thereof wouldn't be "astounding".

 

If I wanted realism, I'd go play one of the bajillion WW2 historicals. Complaining about lack of realism in 40k is like reading LotR and wondering why Galadriel's tax policy isn't described. The krios isn't meant to look realistic, it's meant to look sick as hell and be consistent with prior design language within the setting - a smashing success on both accounts.

 

When people complain about lack of "realism" does not mean that the setting cannot have supernatural elements, fantastic technology, use genre tropes, or have reasonable excuses in the setting to rely in anachronisms. It means that the already stablished internal rules of the universe have been broken, or that otherwise real world mundane things do not work as they should.

 

Galadriel tax policy was irrelevant to LotR's story, but how tanks look and work is relevant in a futuristic miniature wargame that echoes historic wars like WW2 in their visual language since the start with the first Land Raider. 40k is not a high fantasy setting, is a product of the late 70-80s sci-fi trend of the industrial and dirty lived-in future visually pioneered by Star Wars.

 

It makes sense for AdMech/Mechanicum vehicles to look bizarre because despite of what they may say, they're the product of a convoluted religion and culture that puts other things before just being practical and efficient.

 

Sometimes a designer can sacrifice "realism" for the rule of cool and get way with it. But that doesn't mean that that they always are sucessful. The Leman Russ may look like a 1930s death trap, but it looks like it works except for the suspension and turret size that always have been rightfully criticised. A Land Raider Phobos may have strange weapons and design for 21st century Earth, but it's real sin is the lack of ground clearance for the track wheels. Etc, etc.

 

40k tanks have always ignored realism, physics and sound design. To be astounded that the Krios does so as well is either a sign of unawareness of the last 30 years of 40k vehicle design (Both imperial and non-imperial) or severely misplaced hope. If a design works except for XYZ elements, then it doesn't work - full stop. Rules of vehicular realisms were never observed in the setting to begin with, going right back to the very first Predators and Spartan kitbashes. It is not important how exactly a vehicle works in this setting - much like King Crimson, it just does.

 

If belief cannot be suspended, then historicals might be more certain people's speed. This is the exact same conversation that comes up whenever someone asks about realism in 40k guns and sword design.

 

When people complain about realism, more often than not, they're trying to inject some misplaced expectations of consistency with our world into a setting that is profoundly not consistent with our world (not just in terms of contents, but also visuals). To groan and moan about turret size and lack of clearance with a 40k Imperial Vehicle is...weird. I don't think there is a single Imperial Vehicle with sensible amounts of either. Imperial Vehicles are not congruent with expectations of design conformity in our world. They're congruent with aesthetic design in 40k - everything else is tertiary, including the workings of the mundane world. A Land Raider Phobos' lack of ground clearance is only a sin when it is assumed that realism played a significant role in its design as a 40k kit and a constituent of the 40k setting.

[Dudley Nightshade]

I am puzzled by some of the responses here. Suspending our disbelief to accept that magic can exist in a future torn asunder by warp storms, does not mean that a tank can just stop ignoring the laws of physics as we know them on planets as we recognize them. If GW worked some alternate physics into the setting, then that would be fine, but there has to be enough familiar ground in order for us to accept the fantastic parts. It is not fair to use the fantasy parts of the setting to dismiss valid reasons to dislike the design of a vehicle that is expected to behave like its modern equivalent (only better). The design has to be based on something, and we have tanks in real life. Some of the design aspects of GW's tanks are impractical, which has nothing to do with whether daemons exist in the setting.

 

Regarding the design language of each faction, that's a totally fair point. We have accepted Land Raiders and Rhinos as a space marine aesthetic, and new tanks should remind us of those so that the faction looks cohesive.

 

So where is the compromise? The model designers could start working *some* modern ideas into the retro vibe of the designs. Having the turret tall enough to provide the cannon mobility to change its elevation would have been an easy win, for example. Avoiding the shot trap where the gunner(?) sits might have been trickier.

 

Do I like the design of the Kratos? Almost. But I LOVE the Sicaran, and I can't wait to see that in plastic! The reputation of the resin model is the only thing that has held me back from buying one.

 

Edit: I started typing before The Observer's post showed up, so this post is not a reaction to that one specifically. I still think there is an opportunity to take what we know and love about the designs and improve new vehicles to make them more practical without losing their 40K-ness.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Brother Yroc

[lansalt]

If a design works except for XYZ elements, then it doesn't work - full stop.

 

This is just not true. All fiction has a gradient for suspension of belief based in its own rules about what it works and what it doesn't. It's not a binary thing.

 

When people complain about realism, more often than not, they're trying to inject some misplaced expectations of consistency with our world into a setting that is profoundly not consistent with our world (not just in terms of contents, but also visuals). To groan and moan about turret size and lack of clearance with a 40k Imperial Vehicle is...weird. I don't think there is a single Imperial Vehicle with sensible amounts of either. Imperial Vehicles are not congruent with expectations of design conformity in our world. They're congruent with aesthetic design in 40k - everything else is tertiary, including the workings of the mundane world. A Land Raider Phobos' lack of ground clearance is only a sin when it is assumed that realism played a significant role in its design as a 40k kit and a constituent of the 40k setting.

It's not misplaced to expect a sci-fi fantasy setting to follow real world rules where they haven't been explained away somehow by way of the warp or fantastical technology. The lore tells us about the anachronistic and archeological madness of 40k tech, so a Leman Russ that looks like a messy interwar tank  because originally probably it was supposed to work very differently in the DAoT makes sense within the setting, and so we accept it. But its turret size doesn't work because is too small for its cannon and looks charicaturesque and hasn't been explained. It's telling that the treadheads that started FW created LR variants with more sensible turret and weapons size, while keeping the same looks.

[Cyrox]

Well this has gone off on a tangent - to play devils advocate, i served in a cavalry regiment and spent a lot of time in Chally 1 and CVRT, and consider myself a tank nerd, but I couldn’t give two hoots about tank design on 30k and 40k!

 

 

I think it looks cool as heck, turret design be damned.

 

(also, elevation and depression can be achieved with suspension - ask Sweden! )

[spessmarine]

I don't understand tank design so it doesn't really bother me. More bothered by vehicles looking silly (baby carriers) and big goofs like upside guns that are more obvious failures to double check things.

 

With the intentional jokes about aerodynamics being perfidious, some of the disregard of physics is entirely intentional.

[Beaky Brigade]

Kratos looks great to me, much better than a lot of the current GW 40k tanks. I've had a 'Tank Encyclopaedia' and been obsessed by armour since I was 10 years old and I love tanks lol.

It's consistent with the rest of the HH design language, and quite honestly I might run them as Leman Russ stand ins for a guard force as ironically I find that venerable tank ruins my suspension of disbelief.

If it's a commander only turret with an Auto loader then the size isn't necessarily a problem, the gunner position could be remote etc.

Lack of depression we can put down to it simply being a wargaming model and not a real engineered vehicle.

Sloped rounded designs don't seem to be doing very well in a certain part of the world at the moment, so the material and armour thickness and of course crew training, is just as important as that on the modern battlefield



 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Beaky Brigade

[OttoVonAwesome]

Not entirely sure how a fully automated sponson mounted on the outside of a tank shares the same weakness as a ww1 era tank sponson.

[Dagoth Ur]

 

If a design works except for XYZ elements, then it doesn't work - full stop.

 

This is just not true. All fiction has a gradient for suspension of belief based in its own rules about what it works and what it doesn't. It's not a binary thing.

Being able to suspend disbelief does not equal the admission of a design being realistic. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to terminator armour - doesn't mean TDA is realistic according to the mundane world. People in this thread have been talking about realism in design in accordance with the mundane world, not the suspension of disbelief as it relates to the contents of a diegetic world. A design is either realistic, or it isn't. If a tank design's work overall IRL, then we're talking about a realistic design. If a design works for the most part, except for - say - the turret, then the turret design needs to be adjusted for IRL use because obviously the turret design prevents the overall design from being useful. A Leman Russ is unrealistic because of several issues - and that's okay. It's an unrealistic design. It does not claim to be realistic.

 

 

 

It's not misplaced to expect a sci-fi fantasy setting to follow real world rules where they haven't been explained away somehow by way of the warp or fantastical technology.

 

 

So every deviation from rules of the mundane world need to be painstakingly explained away? 30 years of visual design is not enough to accept that things just look this way in this setting, the real world be damned?

 

I don't know, man. If I wanted minutiae of tonnage, physics, mechanisms and whatever other realism thingamajigs there are, I'd just go play and collect historics. Not everything needs to be explained. Not everything can be explained (certainly not to the satisfaction of everyone). That's just how it is in sci fi and fantasy writing and design. What is weird is that people are surprised by a company putting out an unrealistic looking vehicle after 30 years of consistently designing and putting out unrealistic vehicles. It's strange to except something to be realistic or move closer to realism when 30 years of design indicate that this just isn't a concern within the design studio.

 

[lansalt]

So every deviation from rules of the mundane world need to be painstakingly explained away? 30 years of visual design is not enough to accept that things just look this way in this setting, the real world be damned?

 

No, and that's exactly my point. The rules of the 40k universe have already been explained both explicitly in the fluff and by the visual design. They don't need to adress all things, and many issues out of the focus of the game and stories can be hand waved away.  But when the visual design or the fluff explanations about things in focus "fail" or aren't consistent there's room to complain about it. 

 

For example, we know that most SM vehicles like Rhinos and their hatches are too small for marines to fit inside, but we can handwave that due to scale issues and convenience for a gaming board. But the LR turret is too small proportionally for its hull, and that's more obvious and difficult to rationalize. As I said, people usually use "realism" as a shorthand for "believable or within suspension of belief for the setting", not for things to be perfectly accurate to the real world we know.

 

And about all the talk about historicals, one of 30k big draws is to be a pseudo-historical account of a sci-fi war, just like Imperial Armour's Vraks or Badab, along rivet counting schematics going all the way to the RT rulebook. It's nothing new.

Edited May 8, 2022 by lansalt

[Lord Blackwood]

I came to see discussion about potential 40k rules.  I stayed for the fighting about realistic tank design. 

I love this forum 


id gladly pay 1 cp to field something that cool 

[Evil Eye]

I love this thing. It's not realistic in the slightest but that really doesn't bother me given that (as GW have stated themselves) they're supposed to look patently unrealistic. Like, almost no Imperial vehicle makes use of sloped armour, welding or suspension. The entire Imperial design philosophy is basically "put scifi superweapons on this experimental interwar design from the late 20s" and that's why I love them.

 

There are vehicles with design flaws that bother me, but this isn't one of them. I need one.

[lansalt]

Suspensions always bother me, but I think sloped armour, etc can be easily ignored in a setting with plenty of energy weapons. Not to mention seeing real life war videos of sustained 30mm autocannon fire penetrating the sides and destroying tanks has put a dent in my mind about AP rules in general to put it midly.

[Gederas]

Okay so I have to say this:

Just because the tank has little to no gun depression on it's main cannon doesn't make it bad. Look at most Soviet heavy tanks and their WHOPPING -8 degrees of gun depression, max (the IS series maxed out at -6 for the IS-4, and the planned KV-4 had -8, but was also tall as all get out).

 

Additionally: the way the turret is set up it'd have enough gun depression to shoot the roofs of smaller tanks and vehicles.Guess what's normally not as armoured as the rest of the vehicle?