PDA

View Full Version : Ragnarok Heavy Tank (Mk1 Mobile Bunker) :)



Colonel Stagler
22-08-2007, 23:00
I have whipped up this datafax on a VDR site, i always liked to think Ragnaroks as heavy tanks instead of just Leman Russ counts as, sort of like the malcador but a bit more modernish.
When apocalpyse comes out and if there is VDR in the book, i will be making a detachment of these from Chimera kits and buckets of plasticard for my infantry heavy Death Korps.
What does everybody think, C&C most welcome
Stagler out


http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g246/nofearofman/datafax.jpg

Killnik
22-08-2007, 23:05
I envision a Raider Wheel thingy with a russ Chasis espanded with plasticard over the body, mattle cannon turret just like the russ.
Though Looks a bit thin and long/tall in my head.
But that was at least you get the Autocannons on sponsons rather then sitting on the top of the tank.

How did you picture it?

Chaos and Evil
22-08-2007, 23:16
Ragnaroks do not have 2 structure points.

They've approximately the same armour as a Leman Russ (Perhaps slightly weaker), superior rough terrain crossing abilities, and they are armed with:

1x short range battlecannon (2/3rds the range of a Leman Russ battlecannon)
2x Heavy Stubbers


For those that don't know, Ragnarok tanks are from Epic and they look like this:

http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=99060305041&orignav=300808

Master Bait
22-08-2007, 23:37
yeah looks like its based on the chimera chassis, so its not meant to be a super heavy by any means - not even a leman russ variant, just an 'alternative'

Chaos and Evil
23-08-2007, 01:18
Gamewise, it's a slower, less capable Leman Russ (Heavy Stubbers instead of Heavy Bolters, no hull Lascannon, shorter ranged Battlecannon), with an identical armour save (4+, re-rollable).

(Tanks have armour saves in Epic, rather than damage tables, those are saved for Titans).

Sister_Sin
23-08-2007, 01:52
As I recall, one of the studio folks did up some of these in 40K scale for his Vostroyans. I do believe it can be found in the modelling articles on the GW site.

It wasn't a superheavy and it was built with double wide tracks on a Chimera chassis.

Sister Sin

LawrencePhillips
23-08-2007, 11:32
Sorry, for those stats it will have to be as big or bigger than the maladcor tank. I hate people using the VDR rules to make small vehicles into war machines. The rules state war machines must be huge vehicles.

I don't really see a role this tank is filling though. You'd be better off with a detachment of 2 executioners? (autocannon ones) and a russ.

Rambunctious Clott
23-08-2007, 12:52
Ragnaroks do not have 2 structure points.

They've approximately the same armour as a Leman Russ (Perhaps slightly weaker), superior rough terrain crossing abilities, and they are armed with:



You mean they actually have ground clearance?? :eek:

When Black Roses Bloom
23-08-2007, 13:58
Does anyone remember the Leviathan Class Mobile Frotress from Epic? :chrome:

Edit:

The Ragnarock Tank reminds me of an AT on a set of tracks ;P

Chaos and Evil
23-08-2007, 14:05
You mean they actually have ground clearance?? :eek:

Some. :D

In Epic, they almost the only tank that can re-roll Dangerous Terrain checks.

Colonel Stagler
23-08-2007, 14:27
i know what a Ragnarok looks like, I envisoned it with 2 pairs of quad autocannon/stubbers on sponsons (there wasnt stubbers on the VDR site), Battlecannon turret and pintle heavy bolter. Sort of like a malcador in power . The VDR rules are quite bad on that website :)
@ Lawrence Philips: The scratch build and conversion Ragnaroks that i have seen are longer and much wider than a Leman Russ, and some are as big as the Malcador. I wasnt aiming to make a huge uber baneblade sized Ragnarok. Just rules that would do the size some justice.
Stagler out

Chaos and Evil
23-08-2007, 14:38
I envisoned it with 2 pairs of quad autocannon/stubbers on sponsons

But that's not what a Ragnarok is armed with.

It is also not a War Engine.

You should drop by the Specialist Games website and read its rules if you want to know how it compares to a Leman Russ.

Culven
23-08-2007, 15:48
executioners? (autocannon ones)
That is the Exterminator. The Executioner has the long-range Plasma Cannon.


Does anyone remember the Leviathan Class Mobile Frotress from Epic?
I do. I have one at home, along with a digital caliper and piles of plasticard. Now if I can only manage to add some free time to the mix I could build one for 40K. :)


The Ragnarock Tank reminds me of an AT on a set of tracks ;P
What do you mean by "AT"? Anti-Tank, AT-AT (missing the second "AT"), AT-ST...:confused:



You should drop by the Specialist Games website and read its rules if you want to know how it compares to a Leman Russ.
Could you post a link to the info. I don't have time to wade through the site searching for it. Muchos gracías, señor.

Chaos and Evil
23-08-2007, 20:59
Okay:
Space Marines, Imperial Guard & Ork armylists:
http://www.specialist-games.com/epic/assets/lrb/Epic5.pdf

The Leman Russ can be found on page 95.

Siege Infantry & Feral Orks armylists:
http://www.specialist-games.com/assets/swordwindforces2.pdf

The Ragnarok can be found on page 3.



Notes on understanding Epic stats:

Most weapon types have an Anti-Personell (AP) or an Anti-Tank (AT) rating, sometimes both.

A Heavy Stubber is AP6+, so it inflicts a hit on enemy Personell (Infantry units) on a D6 roll of a 6.

A Battlecannon has AP4+ / AT4+, so it inflicts hits on infantry & tank targets on a 4+.

A Lascannon is AT5+... get it?


All measurements are done in cm instead of inches.


The 'firefight' value you can probably ignore if you're just comparing weapons, but suffice to say it represents how good a unit type is in short-range firefights (Surprise surprise).

The CC stat stands for 'Close Combat', and unsurprisingly both tank types have a pretty dismal CC rating of 6+. By way of comparison, a unit of five assault marines has a CC rating of 3+.

The 'reinforced armour' note on both tanks means that they can re-roll their 4+ armour save.



I think that's enough for you to be getting along with. :)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
23-08-2007, 21:02
Gamewise, it's a slower, less capable Leman Russ (Heavy Stubbers instead of Heavy Bolters, no hull Lascannon, shorter ranged Battlecannon), with an identical armour save (4+, re-rollable).

(Tanks have armour saves in Epic, rather than damage tables, those are saved for Titans).

Also once known a Chimedon, Epic fans! Yup, a Chimedon. It was a variant Chimera, armed with a Battlecannon instead of a Multilaser. I made one once, was pretty straight forward.

Use the Hellhound Turret, but instead of the flamer, simply stick in a Leman Russ Battle Cannon, having trimmed down the back of it to fit. Job done!

Then there was the Chimerro, and Chimerax. One had quad autocannons, and the other, a never ending supply of Hunter Killer. I think.

Colonel Stagler
23-08-2007, 21:14
Ah so its not as good as i thought it was, iv tweaked the datafax abit, lowered the armour so the structure points would be easier to take off and have changed the autocannon for stubbers.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g246/nofearofman/datafax-1.jpg

Chaos and Evil
23-08-2007, 22:54
*sigh*

Ragnaroks do not have structure points. They're not war engines.

Ragnaroks do not have heavy bolters.

The Battlecannon on a Ragnarok is shorter-ranged than a Leman Russ's Battlecannon.

The Heavy Stubbers on Ragnarok tanks are not twin-linked.


Additionally, Ragnaroks should come with the rough terrain modification as standard.

Hulkster
23-08-2007, 23:04
I think it would be better with

AV Front 13 Side 12 Rear 10

Short Barrelled Battle Cannon

2 x TL Stubbers (had to use TL Storm Bolters for points)

it comes to 133pts

Culven
23-08-2007, 23:30
I used Normal Speed Tank, AV 14-12-10, Short Barreled Battle Cannon, two Heavy Stubbers, Extra Armour, and Rough Terrain Modification. This comes to 152 points plus the cost of the Extra Armour and Rought Terrain Modification (the cost of which I cannot recall for IG). I'm guessing about 167 total as a Heavy Support choice.

Chaos and Evil
23-08-2007, 23:34
I see it as having a front armour of 13, rather than 14 (It's meant to be slightly inferior to the Leman Russ, although in the same general armour class).

I wouldn't build in the Extra Armour upgrade either; It's slightly weaker than the standard Russ, not slightly stronger.

Colonel Stagler
23-08-2007, 23:57
@Chaos and Evil, you speak as if i dont know what a Ragnarok is, its a
crappy epic tank that krieg used instead of Leman Russes cos they couldnt make them properly, and Ragnaroks were easiest to produce. I also have the epic rules right here on my desk and i know what it has weapons and armour wise, I just see it differently than the epic ones, maybe my army has decided to make Ragnaroks slightly better and improved them, out of traditions sake of using them.

by popular demand i have redone the datafax, its slightly crappier than a Leman Russ now, may work for an alternative for a russ, but its just not how i see them really.
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g246/nofearofman/datafax-2.jpg

MrMojoZ
24-08-2007, 00:32
You can envision something however you want, but if it is an exisiting tank you have to respect that. Why not make up your own tank so no one crys foul? Also, a crappier version of a Russ should proably be less points.

dybbukdude
24-08-2007, 06:07
lumbering means extra fast right and um being that superquick it should be 10 10 10 maybe even 3 or 4 9's
but seriously man that would be a steal for 415 points superquick and good armor value its better than nid nvehicles at least
no but yah i think it's preatty balanced points and weapons
but th esecond set is to weak to be a lumbering warmachine of death i think like 13 all or something
oh theres more thend 2 different sets just dont read this

Chaos and Evil
24-08-2007, 11:47
I just see it differently than the epic ones, maybe my army has decided to make Ragnaroks slightly better and improved them, out of traditions sake of using them.

Then you're not designing a Ragnarok. You're designing a tank that's twice the size with worse armour and a largely different weapons loadout.


2x Twin-Linked Heavy Stubber
The heavy stubbers on Ragnarok tanks are not twin-linked.

Chris_Tzeentch
24-08-2007, 13:05
Colonel Stagler, can you put a link to the VDR site you have been using please?

Thanks

Dakkagor
24-08-2007, 13:26
lumbering means extra fast right and um being that superquick it should be 10 10 10 maybe even 3 or 4 9's
but seriously man that would be a steal for 415 points superquick and good armor value its better than nid nvehicles at least
no but yah i think it's preatty balanced points and weapons
but th esecond set is to weak to be a lumbering warmachine of death i think like 13 all or something
oh theres more thend 2 different sets just dont read this

Lumbering is really slow. It can only move 6 inches and turn once at the end of that move.

You sir, are talking nonsense.

Culven
24-08-2007, 14:17
Colonel Stagler, can you put a link to the VDR site you have been using please?
It is probably this (http://www.rgmw.org/scifi/vdr/index.html) site. I'm not sure how he is inserting the nice little datafax images.

Colonel Stagler, if you could PM me and let me know how you are making the Datafax images, I would appreciate it. :)

Stella Cadente
24-08-2007, 15:47
It is probably this (http://www.rgmw.org/scifi/vdr/index.html) site. I'm not sure how he is inserting the nice little datafax images.

Colonel Stagler, if you could PM me and let me know how you are making the Datafax images, I would appreciate it. :)

hes just using Photobucket, I would assume Print scrn, paste into pain, get rid of the garbage, upload to bucket, and bobs your uncle

but I don't think it really works that well, the tank that is, it might be 10x easier just using the rules of a leman for the Ragnorak

Colonel Stagler
24-08-2007, 15:52
Yea culven is right, thats the only one i can find that lets you do it online, without having to physically write everything down, imho, your better off writing it down and working out hte points yourself, that VDR doesnt have many options, like it cant be given rough terrain, or stubbers an such.
and i made the images by simply printing screen and pasting it into paint :)
Whats the base points of a Leman Russ, is my last incarnation of a Ragnarok cheaper or more expensive, 175pts seems a little expensive to me for a Heavy Support slot and there is no way of putting the points down on the VDR.

@Chris_Tzeench, this is the VDR http://www.rgmw.org/scifi/vdr/index.html

@dybbukdude, lumbering means extra slow, can only move 6 inches :) not speedy fast, the Datafax would say it was fast then :)

Stagler out

Stella Cadente
24-08-2007, 16:16
the base cost of a leman russ, with its standard configuration of lascannon and heavy bolter sponsons, is 165pts

Evilhomer
24-08-2007, 16:59
Then you're not designing a Ragnarok. You're designing a tank that's twice the size with worse armour and a largely different weapons loadout.


The heavy stubbers on Ragnarok tanks are not twin-linked.

I agree with you on the points of the chassis. It needs to be slightly weaker in armour, not a warengine with +- rough terrain modification.

On the topic of conversion from epic to 40k I think we can be flexible. I see no problem with giving it twin-linked heavy stubbers as they seem to be used liberally by FW's DKoK (and we shouldn't foster two seperate images, integration ftw). Quad heavy stubbers no, twin-linked yes. Add the option to upgrade them to single multi-lasers too at a points cost. I mean if we did conversions without thinking what would be good or right by the background then we'd have chimeras with battle cannons and quad autocannon (chimeradon and chimerax respectively) as well as having their full transport capacity!

Chaos and Evil
24-08-2007, 17:07
I see no problem with giving it twin-linked heavy stubbers

So every single weapons system on every single vehicle in Epic is accurate, except for the Ragnarok?

I think not.

A Ragnarok, as standard, has two forward-facing mini-turrets in front of the main battlecannon turret. Each mini-turret is armed as standard with a single heavy stubber.

Now if you want to give it an option to upgrade those heavy stubbers into twin-linked heavy stubbers in exchange for a few points, I'd support that position... but as standard, Ragnaroks have a single heavy stubber.


then we'd have chimeras with battle cannons and quad autocannon (chimeradon and chimerax respectively)

Those two oddities were written out of the game when Epic's third edition was introduced... ten years ago.

We're now on Epic's 4th edition, and they're yet to be re-introduced... I think it's safe to say they're gone. :)

Evilhomer
24-08-2007, 17:23
I'm aware of what ragnoraks have :D I have been a big epic fan for a loooong time and played epic armageddon with my mates prior to the main book being printed. Single heavy stubbers as standard upgradable to twin-linked sounds good to me. I suggested multi-lasers also as they were the ragnaroks original secondary weapons as printed in the death korps of krieg list Jervis wrote before they became the Barran Siege Masters. I liked the idea of including multilasers as low-tech, low maintenance weapons which suited the overall theme. I mean thats what I found really great about EA - alot of the units "felt" right if you see what I mean :)

As for the chimerax and chimeradon I think if epic40k and EA had the support they deserved they may well have survived - afterall there has been no truely official adeptus mechanicus lists since Titan Legions (no, the list in firepower by Gav Thorpe does not count ;)). The current list does not include them either but it is a fan list by dysartes afterall and he seems to have a love for knights. I remember the initial discussions on the epic forums where many people were in favour of knights over tech guard support which I found a touch infuriating :). I don't think its fair to say the chimera variants are dead, after all, forgeworld brought back the gorgon from the dead and the Barran Siege Masters brought back thudd guns and rapiers. So maybe one day we'll see some sort of official support for these in a modified form? I could certainly see two command chimera variants - each with a 6 man capacity and having either a conqueror cannon or a pair of very short ranged twin-linked autocannon....

Colonel Stagler
24-08-2007, 17:25
every vehicle mounted stubber in the DKOK army list is twin linked, thats where i got the idea from.

Chaos and Evil
24-08-2007, 17:57
I could certainly see two command chimera variants - each with a 6 man capacity and having either a conqueror cannon or a pair of very short ranged twin-linked autocannon....

I admit that would be cool. :)

Chaos and Evil
24-08-2007, 17:58
every vehicle mounted stubber in the DKOK army list is twin linked, thats where i got the idea from.

The Centaur vehicle is armed with either one or two heavy stubbers.

Colonel Stagler
25-08-2007, 17:54
The centaur vehicle only has a weapon because the weapon belongs to the passengers it carries :),
Also for modellings sake, i could just buy 2 Heavy Stubber teams from FW an use those for the side Stubbers ,instead of faffing around trying to get my hands on the single stubbers from direct order or FW.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/40k/CoD/painting/vostroyan5th/2.htm
sweeeeet tanks :)
Stagler out

Chaos and Evil
25-08-2007, 18:38
The centaur vehicle only has a weapon because the weapon belongs to the passengers it carries ,

No, the first Heavy Stubber is part of the vehicle.


side Stubbers

The heavy stubbers on the Ragnarok are mounted in mini turrets just forward of the main gun, placed side by side, facing forwards. They're not sponsons on the side of the tank in the manner of a Leman Russ.

The conversion article you posted is pretty accurate, but does have the mini-turrets too far back (They're either side of the turret, instead of forwards of it).

Of course, that article is a counts-as, so it has a lascannon etc. :)

When Black Roses Bloom
28-08-2007, 02:47
What do you mean by "AT"? Anti-Tank, AT-AT (missing the second "AT"), AT-ST...:confused:



Could you post a link to the info. I don't have time to wade through the site searching for it. Muchos gracías, señor.


Heh.. The AT-ST Vehicle from Star Wars :P

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Star-Wars_AT-ST-diecast.jpg