Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hrmm... I need to see alternate paint schemes and angles I think... 

 

Don't care for the front stubbers and the Gatling cannon in the hull looks odd. The dual battle cannon I think looks the best. 

 

Not as bad as I feared it might be, I'll probably limit myself to one depending what FOC slot it occupies. 

1 minute ago, SteveAntilles said:

Based on hatch size.

 

Hrmm interesting reference point... I wonder how consistent that actually is, especially with upscaled Cadians. Gives us a rough idea at least. 

 

Please post when the BB comparison shows up. 

1 minute ago, duz_ said:

 

Hrmm interesting reference point... I wonder how consistent that actually is, especially with upscaled Cadians. Gives us a rough idea at least. 

 

Please post when the BB comparison shows up. 

I'm curious too. Hatches so far have been consistent and interchangable amongst all guard tanks. So far...

Someone at GW seems to have a preference for disposable gunners. That poor guy in the back would need a lot of time to go inside the tank in case of a heavy attack.

At least when the tank gets hit and catches fire the guy can evacuate the vehicle faster than the rest :smile:

 

My guess would be that it would be something like a Macharius, given the weapons and the likely size of the vehicle, more powerful than the Leman Russ but not quite a baneblade (or variants).

Exposed tracks have been on the guard wishlist for ages. Interesting, I suppose. 

 

I'm going to cover this thing with stowage and tank riders. This is going to be expensive for old captain caine. 

 

Didn't realize it could take 2 melta guns or headlights. 

16 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

That pic makes it look similar size to the BB

 

From what I recall the rumours saying it was between the Macharius and Baneblade this seems to fit the bill? 

2 minutes ago, Harrowmaster said:

Taking another look at it (especially in comparison to the BB), part of me thinks it would have just been better to put the macharius in plastic. 

Ngl wish they had... 

14 minutes ago, GreenScorpion said:

Someone at GW seems to have a preference for disposable gunners. That poor guy in the back would need a lot of time to go inside the tank in case of a heavy attack.

At least when the tank gets hit and catches fire the guy can evacuate the vehicle faster than the rest :smile:

 

It looks like he can swing the gun a little left and right and put 2 in the back of the head of a couple of crewmates.  Maybe an aspiring commissar.

4 minutes ago, duz_ said:

 

From what I recall the rumours saying it was between the Macharius and Baneblade this seems to fit the bill? 

Ngl wish they had... 


My wallet is grateful they didn't, I'll probably just nab one of these

5 hours ago, GreenScorpion said:

Someone at GW seems to have a preference for disposable gunners. That poor guy in the back would need a lot of time to go inside the tank in case of a heavy attack.

At least when the tank gets hit and catches fire the guy can evacuate the vehicle faster than the rest :smile:

 

 

It mirrors the placement of the sherman 50cal then the guy on the back is would likely be infantry and not the tank crew. The actual 50cal on the sherman at the back was supposed to fulfill an AA role but by 1944 the allies had air superiority so the gun was used in a ground support role.

 

So it does kinda make sense in that regard.

I don't know why geedubs' designers are so itching to place a living warrior at every gun. Like those primaris landspeeder's turret, or that stationary gun with a damned full size spacemarine. Now this poor guy have to operate a damn stabber outside of the armour. Why don't they put a lousy servoskull like at Aegis' gun-placement or a servitor there? 

Edited by Shamansky
13 hours ago, Shamansky said:

I don't know why geedubs' designers are so itching to place a living warrior at every gun. Like those primaris landspeeder's turret, or that stationary gun with a damned full size spacemarine. Now this poor guy have to operate a damn stabber outside of the armour. Why don't they put a lousy servoskull like at Aegis' gun-placement or a servitor there? 

 

They are just copying standard US WWII tank design. It's not that big of a deal for two reasons.

 

1: it's man'd by a disposable guardsmen.

 

2: "Usually" the turret is between the guy and the enemy giving him fairly good cover. There are famous cases like with Leon Murphy where they held off entire groups of enemy's with a back turret mounted machine gun.

 

Asteticaly I hate it like I hate helmitless SMs tho.

For the me the absurdity of it all is very 40k and one of my favourite parts of the model :laugh:

 

I'll have to see if I can find a VM model somewhere in my collection that I can pose on the gun with. I'm assuming I'll have to make some modifications to account for the new gargantuan guardsmen figures... 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.