Originally this thing started out as this piece of crap
For a long while now I've wanted to make a knight class titan model but I've just been failing to do it. I have had the upper body rather finished for a while now but I just couldn't figure out the legs, until I found these models from AT-43
The legs from these models are great, they pop right off and the core of the model is great too, expect to see it used as the base for a later conversion (My own VTOL design 
). With some defiler kitbashing today I managed to make a nice set of legs in 1 hour and it looks great combined with the top. As for the upper body I am waiting on some components to finish the design. The arms will be made with these as a base 
Now for the question that is bugging me, what the heck should I count this thing as game wise. I'm thinking of using it as a leman russ for my upcoming Adeptus Mechanicum army, in which case I'll incorporate a main gun into the top of the vehicle and make it work, or as just a superheavy for regular games. For the Adeptus Mechanicum army I'm thinking of making a titan legion with these as the support units along with a legion of skitarrii, but these would look perfect with my "US Army in 40k" army.
So what do you guys think?
So what do you guys think?
Hiya, remember meeee?
ReplyDeleteHow you doin' working for Uncle Sam at his meat grinding funpark? I was thinking about how the hell MG gunners using pintle-mounted MGs on tank turrets are supposed to fire something off to their sides or the rear... esp with the tank turret turning and all (not that I think situations where the gunner has to peek out and use that MG happened often, even less that the MG gunner was engaging an enemy while the turret decided to aim at a tank many radians off...). I was wondering where can I find this info, and then I thought of good ol' good ol' WordBear, whose words I can count on, being a reliable first person source and all :D
Fire toads..
Looking at the empty circles on the sides... do you mean to add 2 big guns like them wolfhound (forgot the name:P) Titans? Comment: I'd like to note that often times such a configuration, a mech with no arms but guns on each side next to the cockpit... looks odd. It would have been more appeasing to the eye to have one or two jointed pieces (or entire arms) for the guns to be mounted, but just directly adding a gun on each sponson looks like this mech has feeble canine paws wriggling helplessly out front. The oddity is akin to the memory of ridiculous/hilarious "nipple-mounted guns" for the fembots of one of them Austin Powers movies. Guns mounted directly to the chassis = :P, unless they are mounted on a SINGLE sponson or turret.
Basically that's how ridiculous wolfhounds should appear to be, but somehow Forgeworld managed to design the whole thing in a way that makes me forgive/ignore that "helpless paws" imagery. If they had more joints on the gun, it'd be cool, like SM Dreadnoughts are.
hrmmm... IG Dreadnoughts... Why doesn't IG have 'em? and are Dreadnoughts also a broad term that describes a category of vehicles, so that one can call a killa kan an Ork Dread (Deff Dred? is that a diff vehicle?), Wraithlords = Eldar Dreads, etc?
So what's your take on AT-43?
PS: Is that the underside of a Valkyrie? My I had no idea their chassi were so thin. The wings and engines managed to disguise that pretty well.
PPS: the "crap." Yeah, I always thought Gundam parts were too stupid for gritty 40k, or for any customization beyond Gundam. Too many curves. A mess of curves, so that it's not even take the little curvy armor parts to become parts of a sleek vehicle whose chassi is one big ergonomic slight S curve. Little parts aren't gonna help that. Good choice on leaving Gundam out of the picture. On a more personal note, I hated the notion that they would yet again get more attention than they deserve from their overrated mecha design that's basically the same old, same old mech base with different themed armor parts. Barbie Mech :P
Hiya, remember meeee?
ReplyDeleteHow you doin' working for Uncle Sam at his meat grinding funpark? I was thinking about how the hell MG gunners using pintle-mounted MGs on tank turrets are supposed to fire something off to their sides or the rear... esp with the tank turret turning and all (not that I think situations where the gunner has to peek out and use that MG happened often, even less that the MG gunner was engaging an enemy while the turret decided to aim at a tank many radians off...). I was wondering where can I find this info, and then I thought of good ol' good ol' WordBear, whose words I can count on, being a reliable first person source and all :D
Fire toads..
Looking at the empty circles on the sides... do you mean to add 2 big guns like them wolfhound (forgot the name:P) Titans? Comment: I'd like to note that often times such a configuration, a mech with no arms but guns on each side next to the cockpit... looks odd. It would have been more appeasing to the eye to have one or two jointed pieces (or entire arms) for the guns to be mounted, but just directly adding a gun on each sponson looks like this mech has feeble canine paws wriggling helplessly out front. The oddity is akin to the memory of ridiculous/hilarious "nipple-mounted guns" for the fembots of one of them Austin Powers movies. Guns mounted directly to the chassis = :P, unless they are mounted on a SINGLE sponson or turret.
Basically that's how ridiculous wolfhounds should appear to be, but somehow Forgeworld managed to design the whole thing in a way that makes me forgive/ignore that "helpless paws" imagery. If they had more joints on the gun, it'd be cool, like SM Dreadnoughts are.
hrmmm... IG Dreadnoughts... Why doesn't IG have 'em? and are Dreadnoughts also a broad term that describes a category of vehicles, so that one can call a killa kan an Ork Dread (Deff Dred? is that a diff vehicle?), Wraithlords = Eldar Dreads, etc?
So what's your take on AT-43?
PS: Is that the underside of a Valkyrie? My I had no idea their chassi were so thin. The wings and engines managed to disguise that pretty well.
PPS: the "crap." Yeah, I always thought Gundam parts were too stupid for gritty 40k, or for any customization beyond Gundam. Too many curves. A mess of curves, so that it's not even take the little curvy armor parts to become parts of a sleek vehicle whose chassi is one big ergonomic slight S curve. Little parts aren't gonna help that. Good choice on leaving Gundam out of the picture. On a more personal note, I hated the notion that they would yet again get more attention than they deserve from their overrated mecha design that's basically the same old, same old mech base with different themed armor parts. Barbie Mech :P