WH40k game Imperial Guard Rogal Dorn Battle Tank

[Legionary Pallas]

15 minutes ago, ImperialWarrior said:

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

Given that there's a third loadout visible with the twin cannons, the rotary gun, no bow stubbers, and no sponsons. I'd say that's unlikely.

[Emperor Ming]

Horrifing thought that the Stubbers might cost points

[Captain Idaho]

4 hours ago, Iron Lord said:

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.

 

 

I don't think the concept or theme within a Codex should be dictated between the various force organisation slot they're in.

 

Still, it looks alright without the stubbers underneath.

[ImperialWarrior]

1 hour ago, Mechanicus Tech-Support said:

"Why not just get/use the mecharius" 

Because resin and forgeworld prices ezpz

Personally I prefer the malcadors over the macharius, and I actually like the dorn more than the macharius as well

[Iron Lord]

7 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I don't think the concept or theme within a Codex should be dictated between the various force organisation slot they're in.

 

I figure a similar process drove the creation of the Kratos - it fills the gap in between "Land Raider" and "Fellblade" in Horus Heresy games (since Land Raiders come in squadrons, there).

[sairence]

53 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Horrifing thought that the Stubbers might cost points

 

I'm so used to Heavy Bolters being the anti infantry guns on my tanks that I find Stubbers just kinda odd, even though fluffwise I know they make sense. 

 

Was weird when I built my Macharius, will be weird on this guy too. But I suspect I'm going to mostly run them with the base set of guns anyway...they seem to provide plenty of dakka. 

[Dudley Nightshade]

2 hours ago, ImperialWarrior said:

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?

Hopefully not two set loadouts. The good news is that the diorama-type picture in the community article shows both tanks with the Castigator gatling cannon, but each has a different main gun, and one has sponsons while the other does not. I hope that means it can be configured however you want.

[FarvegNugan]

My take on the dorn design "flaws" 

1 it's basically a giant Churchill or ARL 44. They look very similar. Churchill was a fine tank that while slow on road lost no speed off road and could go over any terrain and climb and operate anywhere. Something a space army would need. Front hull like the LR is identical. 

 

2 the sponsons are remote controlled. Is been a fact since the abnett books and reinforced in imperial armour and other black library books. Remember that an average guard Leman Russ has far better digital systems, CNC systems and targets then we do. (We aren't talking ones built on primitive world's and even they are like driving an m 2,like a video game to make it easier) 

 

The front mounted MG's/meltas are most likely remote controlled. Look you you can't see a single bolt, the tank is festooned in modern grenade launchers and optics and sponsons are remote controlled. 

 

So it's a Churchill black prince for the 41st millenium. It's clearly identical in hull to one of the best, if one of the most awkward tanks of the war. 

Our post war obsession with maneuver warfare is one reason infantry tanks went away. And the Churchill became the Centurion. And the ARL was a good tank it was just already obsolete to the thinking of late war. However it seems tanks built specifically to fight with infantry might be a good idea after all 

[ImperialWarrior]

15 minutes ago, Dudley Nightshade said:

Hopefully not two set loadouts. The good news is that the diorama-type picture in the community article shows both tanks with the Castigator gatling cannon, but each has a different main gun, and one has sponsons while the other does not. I hope that means it can be configured however you want.

You are right I overlooked that 

[Slave to Darkness]

10 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

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.

They cant sell us an expensive Primarch level mini, and a chap on a horse wont carry a Primarch price tag. 

 

Plus they know most Guard players do love a good tank. 

[DesuVult]

Sponsons or really any guns being remote controlled, servitor controlled, or manually fired has depended on resources available to the manufacturer.  There are pretty big differences in production models.  I think one book even had theme side by side with one russ having preysight sensors, a barrel stabilizer, and a small load of highly advanced shells when faced with heavier armor and another russ that had to use bore sighting, couldn't fire on the move, and only had high explosive shells.

[Captain Idaho]

14 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

They cant sell us an expensive Primarch level mini, and a chap on a horse wont carry a Primarch price tag. 

 

Plus they know most Guard players do love a good tank. 

 

I'm not a Guard player, but I love a good tank. If I was a Guard player, I'd probably buy at least one.

 

1 hour ago, Iron Lord said:

I figure a similar process drove the creation of the Kratos - it fills the gap in between "Land Raider" and "Fellblade" in Horus Heresy games (since Land Raiders come in squadrons, there).

 

I think you're probably correct there.

 

Still, that's Heresy. There's always room in Heresy.

 

40K, I'd like the Kratos to be added to the Marine Codex since they don't have a super heavy.

[dbrollsdice]

Yeah I’m all here for this. 

[ImperialWarrior]

Maybe in 10th they’ll release something between a chimera chassis and a leman Russ.

[Iron Lord]

14 minutes ago, ImperialWarrior said:

Maybe in 10th they’ll release something between a chimera chassis and a leman Russ.

Isn't the Forgeworld Carnodon tank exactly this?

[ImperialWarrior]

1 hour ago, Iron Lord said:

Isn't the Forgeworld Carnodon tank exactly this?

I don’t use forgeworld so I wouldn’t know

 

looks like it’s just a backwards boxier leman Russ 

Edited October 25, 2022 by ImperialWarrior

[Iron Father Ferrum]

5 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

I'm not a Guard player, but I love a good tank. If I was a Guard player, I'd probably buy at least one.

 

 

I think you're probably correct there.

 

Still, that's Heresy. There's always room in Heresy.

 

40K, I'd like the Kratos to be added to the Marine Codex since they don't have a super heavy.

 

The Kratos has a downloadable 40K datasheet.  I fought one with my Alpha Legion like a week after people were getting them physically in hand, and almost alpha'd it with the Soulshatter Lascannons on my Land Raider.  It does not, however, have a Chaos datasheet for 40K yet even though the social media team promised one in a Facebook response.

 

 

2 hours ago, Iron Lord said:

Isn't the Forgeworld Carnodon tank exactly this?

 

The Carnodon is, if memory serves, a Solar Auxilia equivalent to the Predator.

[ImperialWarrior]

10 minutes ago, Iron Father Ferrum said:

 

The Kratos has a downloadable 40K datasheet.  I fought one with my Alpha Legion like a week after people were getting them physically in hand, and almost alpha'd it with the Soulshatter Lascannons on my Land Raider.  It does not, however, have a Chaos datasheet for 40K yet even though the social media team promised one in a Facebook response.

 

 

 

The Carnodon is, if memory serves, a Solar Auxilia equivalent to the Predator.

Yeah, armament too similar to a LR for me.

also probably not quite the right sort of light/medium stats for what I’m thinking.

 

honestly, a buffed taurox prime, like an up armored prime, twin auto/lascannons on the turret, then something middle of the road for firepower either in sponsons or hull mounted. Maybe sponson heavy stubbers that can be upgraded to plasma guns?

[Silas7]

23 hours ago, Ramell said:

 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.

 

When your drowning in nids I strongly disagree

[Silas7]

11 hours ago, ImperialWarrior said:

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?

 

Like the new primaris speeders? I could see that.

[MithrilForge]

Is the tank here yet ?!?… …. It’s been like at least a day or two!! … I wants it now  

 

M. 

[Dark Shepherd]

On 10/25/2022 at 12:04 AM, Beaky Brigade said:

Saw a youtube vid that suggested this has a transport capacity due to windows or firing ports on the sides (behind sponsons) and belly design

 

Possible transport variant or different datasheet?

[Bouargh]

1 hour ago, Dark Shepherd said:

Saw a youtube vid that suggested this has a transport capacity due to windows or firing ports on the sides (behind sponsons) and belly design

 

Possible transport variant or different datasheet?

 

Saw it too, but I would rather bet this is more of a wish list rather than anything else. More likely  these 3 slots are vents/air cooling plugs just like we can see on the side of the chimera or on the sides of some real life vehicles depicted in previous posts. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Bouargh

[Brother Borgia]

39 minutes ago, Bouargh said:

 

Saw it too, but I would rather bet this is mor of a wish list than anything else. More likely  these 3 slots are vents/air cooling plugs just lke we can see on the side of the chimera or on the sides of some real life vehicles depicted in previous posts. 

That’s not what he is talking about. 
 

There is a view port on the side of the hull right under the commander hatch ( when the turret is facing forward ) similar to the driver view port, but waaay behind. 
 

A transport capacity would explain the shell trap at the junction of the upper and lower glacis ( an assault ramp ). Lower glacis Melta would in fact have the same use as the one on a Mastodon : a wall breaching device. 

[Fire Golem]

I imagine they’d have mentioned transport capability/a transport option in the article if there was any.