WH40k game Imperial Guard Rogal Dorn Battle Tank

[Bjorn Firewalker]

The tank looks like something a ten-year-old child drew. My three main complaints, AFTER "Why get this, when the Astra Militarum already has the Macharius?":

 

1) Why the hell add a hull-mounted cannon that fires ammo incompatible with that of the main (turret-mounted) weapons?! We saw this with the Baneblade, which stupidly carries a Demolisher cannon in the hull, making it cramped and fatiguing the crew as a direct consequence.

 

2) Why the hell add heavy stubbers to the front hull? Are they servitor-operated, which will make the hull more cramped, fatiguing the human crew faster? I doubt the driver(s) will be able to hit anything when firing the weapons, as I don't see any sights on the mounts, and the driver(s) will be too busy DRIVING to aim. At least mount the damn things higher up, so the heavy stubbers won't be doomed to uselessness after mud and sand plug up their muzzles, or after their barrels bend when the tank drives down a hill or rams (intentionally or not) a wall or another vehicle!

 

3) Why mount the turret-mounted heavy bolter on a pintle at the rear, where the tank commander can't reach the weapon without exiting the vehicle and exposing himself to enemy fire?! If they won't fit it to a remote weapon station, why not fit it to a ring mount, as seen on the M1 Abrams and other M3 tanks, so the tank commander has a 360° field of fire?

 

And while we're at it, why not add an active protection system to defend the Rogal Dorn from enemy Ranged Attacks (in-game, give the tank an Invulnerable Save)?

[Bjorn Firewalker]

5 hours ago, Brother Borgia said:

- Love the turret stubber. I’m betting tank commander and gunner will keep their hatch closed in firefights.

They'd be better off using a remote weapon station, especially if the stupid hull-mounted heavy stubbers are relocated there, where the weapons are less likely to get plugged up with mud and sand, or get bent out-of-shape whenever the tank bumps into something.

- There is a shell trap between the upper and lower glacis, and I really don’t get why.

 

Good catch!

- The main hull gun looks totally off, especially the Gatling. No room for a gunner and loader for the mini demolisher, no way to evacuate cartridges in case of the Gatling.

If the tank has an escape hatch on the hull floor, the spent cartridges can be evacuated that way- IF the crew wants to dramatically increase their tank's vulnerability to mines.

 

But yes, there's no fixing the outright ABSENCE of room for a gunner and loader. Replacing them with a servitor and a mechanical autoloader, will mitigate but NOT solve the problem.

[ImperialWarrior]

56 minutes ago, Bjorn Firewalker said:

The tank looks like something a ten-year-old child drew. My three main complaints, AFTER "Why get this, when the Astra Militarum already has the Macharius?":

 

1) Why the hell add a hull-mounted cannon that fires ammo incompatible with that of the main (turret-mounted) weapons?! We saw this with the Baneblade, which stupidly carries a Demolisher cannon in the hull, making it cramped and fatiguing the crew as a direct consequence.

 

2) Why the hell add heavy stubbers to the front hull? Are they servitor-operated, which will make the hull more cramped, fatiguing the human crew faster? I doubt the driver(s) will be able to hit anything when firing the weapons, as I don't see any sights on the mounts, and the driver(s) will be too busy DRIVING to aim. At least mount the damn things higher up, so the heavy stubbers won't be doomed to uselessness after mud and sand plug up their muzzles, or after their barrels bend when the tank drives down a hill or rams (intentionally or not) a wall or another vehicle!

 

3) Why mount the turret-mounted heavy bolter on a pintle at the rear, where the tank commander can't reach the weapon without exiting the vehicle and exposing himself to enemy fire?! If they won't fit it to a remote weapon station, why not fit it to a ring mount, as seen on the M1 Abrams and other M3 tanks, so the tank commander has a 360° field of fire?

 

And while we're at it, why not add an active protection system to defend the Rogal Dorn from enemy Ranged Attacks (in-game, give the tank an Invulnerable Save)?

1. 40K tank design is silly don’t overthink the nipple guns

2. the heavy stubber is placed in a manner inline with US MG placement for such guns.

3. An RWS and active protection would seriously undermine the vibe of WWII/early Cold War they were going for.

[Wispy]

is it an imperial guard tank if its not silly in some way? no, it is not. 

[ShibeKing]

I think my issue is that I just don't like WW1 or WW2 inspired tanks. 

 

Please pray for me everyone. I'll have to do an Infantry focused IG army... that or have allied Knights to go with them.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

9 minutes ago, ImperialWarrior said:

1. 40K tank design is silly don’t overthink the nipple guns

2. the heavy stubber is placed in a manner inline with US MG placement for such guns.

3. An RWS and active protection would seriously undermine the vibe of WWII/early Cold War they were going for.

Couldn’t agree more with these sentiments.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The tank looks absolutely fantastic !!

[USNCenturion]

People complaining about the rear mounted  stubber know those guns are technically supposed to engage aircraft or suppress infantry that could threaten the tank, right? The location doesn’t seem so ridiculous if you consider it will be aiming at elevated windows in an urban setting, firing over the heads of entrenched positions, or at a plane lining up for a strafing run. 

Assigning real world rationale to sci fi model making seems like a losing battle at best, but there are more ways to think about the decisions that went into the design. 

[Ramell]

In my opinion, the only issue with the hull stubbers is the exact design and placement of them. They could've been integrated with the glacis in a more subtle way instead of sitting in a big hemisphere in . More like the driver's guns on the M2 Medium, M3 Medium and preproduction M4 Medium, with maybe the barrels sticking out further like on early M3 Lights. I'm a big fan of the "more dakka" period of US tank design and I think it suits the guard, and I really like the idea of even the driver trying (and mostly failing) to gun down xenos or heretics. 

But the execution here isn't perfect, and I'll probably go with the headlights for my own models. 

[spessmarine]

fortunately for you all. the nipple guns and hop-on platform gun are optional
neat tank, primaris leman russ, guard update really feels like Cadians are the standard sci-fi soldier type while other regiments go wild

 

Edit

Oh, and of course, the gate is now open for hypothesizing other primarch tanks/vehicles.

Edited October 25, 2022 by spessmarine

[Bonzi]

I like it.  One will make a nice centerpiece addition to my guard.  Luckily I have plenty of OG sentinels and I use Victoria Miniatures for my infantry so the LE box held limited appeal for me. This will probably be the one thing I splash out on this release.

 

I hope the kit has a dozer blade attachment although I suspect if it did, it would have been shown.

[Jamafore]

I actually don't mind the stubbers on the front hull, but I wonder what they would look like/ how easy it would be to convert them to be where the arched headlights are. Just a thought.

[lansalt]

5 hours ago, Bjorn Firewalker said:

1) Why the hell add a hull-mounted cannon that fires ammo incompatible with that of the main (turret-mounted) weapons?! We saw this with the Baneblade, which stupidly carries a Demolisher cannon in the hull, making it cramped and fatiguing the crew as a direct consequence.

It's a design taken from interwar tanks like the french Char B1 or the american M3. They put small artillery cannons in the hull until bigger turrets with multipurpose cannons became technically possible (and WW2 german tank tactics proved it a liability, too). Of course it doesn't make sense in a Baneblade or other 40k tanks, but rule of cool. etc, etc.

 

[Astartes Consul]

1 hour ago, Jamafore said:

I actually don't mind the stubbers on the front hull, but I wonder what they would look like/ how easy it would be to convert them to be where the arched headlights are. Just a thought.

Also think you could cover them with a roll of home made camo netting quite easily?

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

Yeah my first reaction was a Chimera crossed with a Baneblade, but it’s definitely got Car b1 vibes. Funnily enough I bought a  Toon Tanks Char B1 https://www.google.com.au/search?q=toon+tanks+char+b1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-au&client=safari about a year ago to convert into a Hellhound, and after seeing the Rogal Dorn I may have to dig it out of my pile o shame and see what I can do with it. It’d make a cute little brother to the Dorn and was quite inexpensive to purchase. Of course I won’t be able to play anywhere official with it, but I don’t really care TBH.

 

Edit: the idea was shameless stolen by myself from the internet.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Captain Smashy Pants

[Captain Idaho]

Grown on me somewhat, though only if you use the lights instead of stubber guns, which just look tacked on. Looks quite good as a main battle tank.

 

I just don't feel like it fills an actual need in the Codex really. Big super heavy tank with super firepower has the Baneblade. Main battle heavy tank is the Leman Russ. We don't need a "heavy heavy not super heavy" tank. There's just other things even in the Guard range GW could have utilised the resources of creating this for.

 

Unless it's a future replacement for the Leman Russ? Which brings me onto something... next to the modern infantry that are increased in size, it is somewhat the same sort of scale Leman Russ tanks were to infantry when they first came out. Somewhat.

 

Oh and an Imperial tank HAS to have sponsons if available! It's part of what makes 40K 40K.

[Robbienw]

Its still not as cool as the Macharius, but the more I look at it the more I like it 

[Marshall Bretton]

Just relooking at the pictures of this and it actually looks like there is a bracket for a weapon mount on the turret ring for the loader. I assume this means that the heavy stubber can be mounted there instead of to the rear of the turret for those who want a less exposed position.

 

Personally I love this model as a model, I think it's really well designed and I love the use of ww2 era tanks as inspiration. If I get one myself though I will be removing quite a few of these elements like the rear mounted gun just to give it a more modern feel to fit in with my own style.

[Iron Lord]

4 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I just don't feel like it fills an actual need in the Codex really. Big super heavy tank with super firepower has the Baneblade. Main battle heavy tank is the Leman Russ. We don't need a "heavy heavy not super heavy" tank. There's just other things even in the Guard range GW could have utilised the resources of creating this for.

The Baneblade is a Lord of War, the Leman Russ is a "squadron vehicle" taken in groups of 3. In between the two is a gap - for "Heavy Support vehicles that are only taken 1 at a time". Forgeworld's Malcador fills the same gap now, being HS, but GW seems to like to replace Forgeworld stuff - (giving the Eldar and the Tau aircraft in their codexes that aren't the Forgeworld ones, for example).

 

I'd say the Rogal Dorn is very much a "mini-Baneblade" - like the Macharius but with a hull mounted gun (which can be a mini-Demolisher - in line with the "scaled down Baneblade" role), and an option for a single large gun instead of two battle cannons.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Iron Lord

[Emperor Ming]

I wouldn't shed a tear if most of the guard fw stuff got the chop

 

It's all been garbage for quite some time now

[Beaky Brigade]

Early sherman had twin fixed mgs in the hull (the twin ones, not the one on the ball mount). Though they were deleted in later versions. Some ppl just love mgs. 

 

[Redcomet]

11 hours ago, Bjorn Firewalker said:

The tank looks like something a ten-year-old child drew. My three main complaints, AFTER "Why get this, when the Astra Militarum already has the Macharius?":

 

1) Why the hell add a hull-mounted cannon that fires ammo incompatible with that of the main (turret-mounted) weapons?! We saw this with the Baneblade, which stupidly carries a Demolisher cannon in the hull, making it cramped and fatiguing the crew as a direct consequence.

 

2) Why the hell add heavy stubbers to the front hull? Are they servitor-operated, which will make the hull more cramped, fatiguing the human crew faster? I doubt the driver(s) will be able to hit anything when firing the weapons, as I don't see any sights on the mounts, and the driver(s) will be too busy DRIVING to aim. At least mount the damn things higher up, so the heavy stubbers won't be doomed to uselessness after mud and sand plug up their muzzles, or after their barrels bend when the tank drives down a hill or rams (intentionally or not) a wall or another vehicle!

 

3) Why mount the turret-mounted heavy bolter on a pintle at the rear, where the tank commander can't reach the weapon without exiting the vehicle and exposing himself to enemy fire?! If they won't fit it to a remote weapon station, why not fit it to a ring mount, as seen on the M1 Abrams and other M3 tanks, so the tank commander has a 360° field of fire?

 

And while we're at it, why not add an active protection system to defend the Rogal Dorn from enemy Ranged Attacks (in-game, give the tank an Invulnerable Save)?

All of this would fly in the face of the retro futuristic look of the Guard vehicles. They are meant to look like the lovechild of several old irl tanks. 

6 minutes ago, Beaky Brigade said:

Early sherman had twin fixed mgs in the hull (the twin ones, not the one on the ball mount). Though they were deleted in later versions. Some ppl just love mgs. 

 

The Muricans lived their dakka

[Spagunk]

Lest we forget:

 

**shamelessly stolen from Gray-Skull art on twitter**

[ImperialWarrior]

Anyone notice that the examples given seems like neither example has specialized loadouts?

 

big gun, Gatling cannon, meltas and MM. mostly AT but the hull weapon is AP.

 

twin guns, demolisher, stubbers, and HBs. Mostly medium/light unit killing, but with an AT hull weapon.

 

has anyone considered that there’s no mix n match weapons but it’s 2 set loadouts?

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

"Why not just get/use the macharius" 

Because resin and forgeworld prices ezpz

Edited October 26, 2022 by Mechanicus Tech-Support