I've been mulling over doing a Krieg Tank Regiment army list at some future point (I think there's enough divergance from the more generic Minervans to make it worthwhile), and that'd be a good place to have them, but this list should only have the 'core 3', plus the Thunderer Siege Tank.


Being as that'd be pretty much impossible to make WYSIWYG, this one cannot happen.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Is a Death Korps Tank Regiment THAT different to the Minervans? If i compare the IAupdate28AUG.pdf Armoured Battlegroup armylist with the Krieg Armoured Battlegroup army list found in Vraks 3 i see not that much differences.

And yes sculping pintle mounted Heavy Stubbers on Epic scale Leman Russ tanks would be very fiddly

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

My two cents, the naming for the batteries should stay as it is in the document and not correstpond to the Vraks naming, if not because the Vraks naming is well, silly...the current naming is much more appropriate and accurate.

_________________
Chaos Titan Legions: Khorne
Chaos Titan Legions: Nurgle

An AP6+ weapon can just be free as its modeled onto your vanquishers right? Hardly much difference. And only add it if you think the vanquisher is not attractive at +50.


Echo BL, I've done turret swaps between my FW/SG models.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Looks very professional.

Only thing I would change (ignoring everything above) is the background on the reference sheets (last 2 pages) - it is very distracting.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Nope – there’s all those FW Russes people have, as others have said.

We were running an intro game for a w40k player newbie to EpicA the other day; 5k game, fully painted table and armies, all looking the part with no unpainted models or this counts as this. I had to point out that his Leman  Russ needed to roll attack dice for heavy bolters the models didn’t carry (as a W40k player you’d be used to them being optional) and it just felt like a failing of the game/lists. I don’t think epic should detail things like whether a Leman Russ carries a heavy bolter or a lascanon as it’s hull weapon, but I do think sponsons there or not should be an option as half the range already don’t have them.  Adding the option in for those who choose too doesn’t really affect anyone that goes with sponsons as now anyway, they’d just not take them - everyone could be happy    

Whether you model it in the rules is your call, but making these are eminently possible and I definitely intend to do so with mine. I’d planned to even when I thought the smaller gun was the autocanon like you said and it would have to be even smaller (was thinking either CAD or plasticard and thin wire for the barrel, plus the ammo from one of the squat plastic elite infantry models which has one that looks in scale), now I can see the size it’s still tricky to CAD but looks feasible. You would need to fill in the gaps underneath the gun so it’s connected solidly to the bit underneath and that to the turret itself and you’re sorted.

You’d be by far the best person to model such a thing (thinking about it a sprue with a pintle mounted heavy stubber and tank commander firing it plus trench rails could be cool) and it shouldn’t take very long at all, but if you’re busy and/or don’t fancy then I’ll have a go myself if I get good  enough with CAD.

I agree that the other tank variants are probably best reserved for a Tank Regiment list and I’m happy to see you’re planning to do one.

I've always ignored the sponsons issues with my tanks (the ones Glyn and I were using)...after all the FW ones DO have a pretty hefty storm bolter as a co axial weapon...
Though it's my personal (aesthetic) opinion that sponsons are a must for leman russes...it's very imperial.  The lack of sponsons has only come around recently due to 40k points pricing and peoples wish to get as many armoured vehicles with battlecannons in thier list as possible...and that's been changed again now that leman russes can fire all of thier weapons.

I'll echo Hena and others by stating that epic isn't 40k, and whilst Black Legion shouldn't take this too harshly don't we think following the naming conventions is a little OTT? It just feels a bit...well...anal! I don't mean to cause offense here but sometimes it feels we spend more time arguing and mentioning about names than talking about how the units and points work in game

_________________
MoK's Painting Blog
Now Showing:
Mok's Modular Modern Messy Guard Army

Other than the fact that it's a Heavy Stubber and not an Autocannon (I got that wrong), Death Korps Vanquishers are unique in that they all have a co-axial heavy stubber attached to the turret.



Count yourself lucky I haven't entirely removed the AP attack from the Vanquisher, so as to properly match 40k/the background, where Vanquishers cannot fire template attacks but only fire anti-tank shells.  I was afraid you'd have a stroke.


Whilst I clearly couldn't be bothered to look up the 40k naming conventions myself, I can't see the harm in using BlackLegion's research and adopting most of them (not the silly Apocalypse name for the Hellhound Squadron though).


For each army list, I would say this is correct, each army list should assume that every tank in it of a particular type behaves the same.

So all Steel Legion Russes have Heavy Bolter Sponsons, and all Codex Marine Predator Destructors have Lascannon Sponsons, and all Black Legion Predators have Heavy Bolter Sponsons.

However, there's nothing wrong with all Catachan Russes having Heavy Flamer Sponsons, or whatever, and this could include all Death Korps Leman Russes having no Sponsons...

...however I'm still loath to make this move.


I will note that the whole 'they don't use Sponsons' argument comes solely from the pictures in the Vraks books... when Forgeworld have, to my knowlege, never featured a Leman Russ with Sponsons in any of their, what, ten sourcebooks?

The 40k rules allow them to take Sponsons, I believe it's just an aesthetic choice of Forgeworld's not to use sponsons on their tanks, rather than any great indication of typical Krieg weapons loadouts.



You mean put the Vanquisher back to 45pts, and just assume that the Heavy Stubber doesn't make much difference and can be absorbed into the overall balance of the army?

You're probably right, I reckon, so I'll do that.

And yeah it is modelled onto my Death Korps Vanquisher turrets.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Actually the Vanquisher of the Amroured Batttlegroup army list has the option for a co-axial Heavy Stubber.
The Krieg Armoured Battlegroup doesn't mention this as well as Codex Imperial Guard.

This is a failing of FW that the only Vanquisher model with a co-axial Heavy Stubber is the Mars Alpha Pattern Leman Russ Vanquisher but the actual Krieg armylists can't have it.  

Ok correction the Leman Russ Vanquisher Gryphonne VII pattern model has a co-axial Storm Bolter
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20 ... 4vanq2.jpg

The Stygies VIII pattern has something co-axial too which look slike a STorm Bolter with longer barrels:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Imperial%20 ... 8vanq1.jpg

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

While I think he was a bit abrasive, I'm with Hena in not seeing much point in changing stats to reflect that level of detail.

There are different weapons on various chassis in the game, but variants based on major weapon swaps is not quite the same.  It's true that the Predator example includes multiple variants based on the weapon loads.  However, they are distinguished by major feature changes like both sponson turrets, not with secondary "add-on" features.  A "Predator Annihilator" is the same in every SM list, it's not a "Chapter X Predator Annihilator" that adds a hunter-killer missile just because Chapter X fields hks as standard.

Such minor differences make no functional difference in the list.  Can you really make the case that adding a stubber makes the DK Vanquisher play or feel differently?

_________________
Neal

Without sponsons and no AP value on the Vanquisher Cannon but with an co-axial Heavy Stubber the Death Korps Vanquisher would play differently as its AT-role is more prominent than with the standart Vanquisher.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

The Heavy Stubber is largly a side-show, which will be highly unlikely to affect the balance of the tank. It's there because it's on the 40k version of the tank, and it's on my own scratchbuild version.

The real game changer would be if the Vanquisher had not AP attack on its main gun at all (as it can only fire a single AT shot per turn in Warhammer 40,000)... but that would involve changing either the gun's name, or the stats of an official weapon.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Surely an additional 30cm AP6+ shot isn't a gamebreaker  

An other thing i had to think about today: The Marauder.
Ever heard of a He111 supporting a ground assault? Or bombing a convoy? No? Perhabs it is that these tasks where done by Ju87 Stukas, Me109 and FW190 equipped with bombs. The British had even more specialised aircrafts for ground support in form of the Hawker Tempest.

My proposal: remove the Marauder. Add the Lightning Interceptor and Lightning Strike.
So you have:
Lightning Interceptor as a highly specialized anti-aircraft formation (200pts for 2).
Lightning Strike as a highly specialized anti-tank formation (200pts for 2).
Thunderbolt Fighters as cheaper jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none (150pts for 2).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/