30k Vehicle/Automata Concepts - The Manufactorum

[malika666]

Thanks for the price list, regarding the path you're walking. GW are a good one to aim for, I really hope they do hire you. Hopefully they'll then allow you to come up with concepts as well rather than you only having to put their concepts into artwork.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Thanks for the price list, regarding the path you're walking. GW are a good one to aim for, I really hope they do hire you. Hopefully they'll then allow you to come up with concepts as well rather than you only having to put their concepts into artwork.

 

Yeah, I'd probably only apply for the occasional concept artist positions they advertise for rather than illustration stuff - while it does interest me, I want to get significantly better before I start going for those kind of gigs

[Ryltar Thamior]

Very cool work with the bomber. I'm particularly appreciative of the way that it , despite being done "from scratch" nevertheless manages to draw from extant elements in the latter-day [i.e. 40k] Astartes range - iincluding most notably the Stormhawk, for the frontal crew position. I also notice, upon second glance, that it's got some silhouette similarities with the Valkyrie, and even the Marauder. Nice work, bringing all that together, with some additional elements like the second dorsal crew position etc.; and that Heresy feel with the quad armaments. 

Also, I'm surprised and pleased to see frag-cannons incorporated into the 30k milieu. They're a pretty logical place as a sub-in for assault cannons [i'm presuming that frag-cannons are less 'temperamental' in terms of potential jams, in addition to having a rather broader role-versatility due to varying firing modes]; although I remain intrigued by the possibilities potentially afforded for infantry Astartes use as the Heresy grinds on, especially given the relative rarity of volkite weaponry over this time. I imagine that a frag-cannon's easier to produce and to repair than a martian ray-gun? 

Anyway, keep up the good work :D I've just come back to B&C after a few months' absence, and as per usual, this thread and your works more generally [i still need to get around to putting together some spins on miniature renditions of your legion character-types etc.] is a standout in terms of inspiration for me :) 

[Brother Tholath]

If it helps @Ryltar Thamior, they aren't frag cannons, but quad-linked laser destroyers

[Ryltar Thamior]

If it helps @Ryltar Thamior, they aren't frag cannons, but quad-linked laser destroyers

Yeah, I was referring to the frag cannons he'd put as an optional upgrade for the Warg tank design; apologies for my lack of clarity - it's an occupational hazard with reply8ing at 04:28 a.m ... I just kinda jumbled it all up together, i guess, because there was s\o much to catch up upon since i was last here :P 

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Very cool work with the bomber. I'm particularly appreciative of the way that it , despite being done "from scratch" nevertheless manages to draw from extant elements in the latter-day [i.e. 40k] Astartes range - iincluding most notably the Stormhawk, for the frontal crew position. I also notice, upon second glance, that it's got some silhouette similarities with the Valkyrie, and even the Marauder. Nice work, bringing all that together, with some additional elements like the second dorsal crew position etc.; and that Heresy feel with the quad armaments. 

 

Also, I'm surprised and pleased to see frag-cannons incorporated into the 30k milieu. They're a pretty logical place as a sub-in for assault cannons [i'm presuming that frag-cannons are less 'temperamental' in terms of potential jams, in addition to having a rather broader role-versatility due to varying firing modes]; although I remain intrigued by the possibilities potentially afforded for infantry Astartes use as the Heresy grinds on, especially given the relative rarity of volkite weaponry over this time. I imagine that a frag-cannon's easier to produce and to repair than a martian ray-gun? 

 

Anyway, keep up the good work I've just come back to B&C after a few months' absence, and as per usual, this thread and your works more generally [i still need to get around to putting together some spins on miniature renditions of your legion character-types etc.] is a standout in terms of inspiration for me

 

Thanks Ryltar - having a generally 'conservative' approach when it comes to designs meant the bomber was an novel challenge for me, and it was fun to combine existing design features in new & interesting ways - drawing from the Astraeus & Land Speeder Storm hatches for the copilot position / cockpit access hatch was especially cool.

 

I'd kinda set a personal precedent for the Frag Cannon in 30k 'cause I imagined them being a potential sponson armament for my vision of the Thunderstrike, but including it as an option for the Warg kinda came about as part of an effort to differentiate the tank from the Predator - I didn't want any crossover in turret weaponry, but with similar calibre weapons, that really meant avoiding any of the same 'classes' of weaponry, and with the Predator's range of turret weapons (including my plans for graviton cannon, volkite & quad heavy bolter versions) that was tricky. The Kheres was a cool & obvious weapon, and I could tolerate the melta cannon & reaper autocannon battery 'cause they were different enough from their counterpart Predator weapons to suit the Warg's assault role. The frag cannon was basically my way of avoiding giving the Warg a flamestorm cannon - obviously a flamer weapon just makes sense on an assault / close support tank for the Legions, but the flamestorm was the only flamer weapon of the right scale in use by the Legions and was already claimed by the Predator. I considered a volkite weapon, but I'd been going for a rugged, practical vibe with the Warg - primarily projectile weapons for an assault tank that probably gets pretty beat up - so it didn't really fit that well, and I ended up choosing the frag cannon as it seemed like a cool flamer analogue for use in close assault. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the kind words - if you're interested in a jump-pack Contemptor and a Legion spin on the Valkyrie, keep an eye out 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Iron Hands Fanatic

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Another commission, this one was for a Jump-Pack Contemptor variant - not necessarily the direction I'd take this sort of Contemptor design in, but was certainly an interesting one to work on, & ended up with some very Raven-Guard looking stylings

 

[Xin Ceithan]

I like the Contemptor. It should be called the "Hoplite Pattern" for obvious reasons.

 

It' so impractical and over the top. Really Rogue Trader era material. Total Rule of Cool!

 

Can I order some for the Night Lords? ;)

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Anyone interested in a Legion version of the Vendetta? This one's another commission, & I like it so much I'll probably end up making a ruleset

 

 

I like the Contemptor. It should be called the "Hoplite Pattern" for obvious reasons.

It' so impractical and over the top. Really Rogue Trader era material. Total Rule of Cool!

Can I order some for the Night Lords?

 

It does feel kinda Night Lord-y - with sufficient added body parts of course 

[Phatsquirre1]

That's freaking cool, now I'm curious as to what a Solar Auxilia variant might look like. Nice job IHF. 

[Charlo]

I like the little Astartes design queues on that. Would look great in 1st legion colours ;)

[Ryltar Thamior]

 

 

It does feel kinda Night Lord-y - with sufficient added body parts of course 

What you did there. I see it :P 

 

And speaking of things I see which you did - i now see where you were referring to them stormhawk parts on that legion bomber, as also showing up. 

 

THe sponsons are an interesting approach; another possibility, albeit on a Valkyrie hull, would have been waist ball-turrets; but i can see why it was sponsons instead. ALthough i'd probably change up what looks on the surface like spotlights for targeting optics. Although maybe that's what's behind the grills anyway :P 

 

It's probably the angle, but i was wondering if the heavy bolter traverse puts it in the line of fire of one of hte lascannons if it's at full ninety degree rotation. [although the heavy bolter probably isnt' that long anyway, so my bad].

 

Nice additional touches with a) the dorsal fins/vains [not sure of the technical term] reminiscent of drop pod or landspeeder stylings [i see the tailfins have been similarly improved]; and b) the panels rather like the sponson fittings for the modern predator and land raider, on the wings above the lascannon mounts. Really helps to tie it back to the rest of the Marine range. And while i do feel that atm it's looking rather more towards the Phobos sort of patterning than Deimos [and therefore, somewhat more 40k than 30k] .. that's probably a matter of personal perception on my part - and even if it were the case, not somthing that's entirely inappropriate anyway, as we've seen from other vehicles which have attested 30k availability. 

 

One *slight* point of concern I do have, however, is that in its present configuration, it might seem a bit overgunned. This is partially a result of just how heavily armed Vendettas are to begin with - I went off and checked, and yeah, it turns out that three sets of twin-linked lascannons plus two heavy bolters *is* standard. My issue with that is how one fits the generators, capacitors etc. for all six lascannons inside the hull whilst *also* i) not weighing it down tremendously and making it rather unwieldy in the air, especially when using VTOL capacity or otherwise employing the wingtip propulsion ii) not consuming a significant proportion of the cargo-bay which is otherwise required for its transport capacity [although the lack of difference between the Valkyrie and Vendetta when it comes to transport capacity may suggest that unlike teh Land Raider or Razorback, adding or removing large-scale lascannon firepower doesn't alter this for whatever reason... ] ; etc.

 

Again, none of that's on you - it's problems with the regular Vendetta. Although these may be exacerbated here somewhat by the crew being Astartes, and presumably quite likely in powered armour, with all the weight and space impacts which that may entail. 

 

However, in terms of changes you've made to the design - I note you've shifted the hull-mounted lascannon to a chin-mount. It makes sense, particularly for what's effectively a stay-around gunship rather than a 'true' strike aircraft. Although I do wonder whether twin lascannons, even slightly reduced in size, are a bit big for the space in the chin available, given the turreted housing for the behind-the-barrelly-bitz [my technical terminology is quite clearly on fire today. Hence why it's burning out, apace.] 

 

The additional complication with this is taht you've swapped out the sensor-gear from the nose in the regular Guard/Navy pattern for these lascannons - although i can't seem to see where it's migrated to on the Astartes pattern design. This might be an oversight on my part; or perhaps it's assumed to be integrated into the cockpit lenses/sensorial gear , (and/or) coz Astartes. 

 

The second thing is about the heavy bolters. To begin with, who'se firring them. I mean, there are three ways to go with this. Either servitor crew for those [which makes a certain sense given htey're high rate of fire secondary weapons in a relatively limited traverse, at the cost of accuracy ], which gets around osme of the "crew in power armour" bits and pieces aforementioned; or additional Marines running 'em [which brings weight and space issues, and a cost-benefit tradeoff given they're in such a limited traverse]; or they're operated by the gunner in the second cockpit [which .. would have somewhere between three and five weapons being oeprated by the one crew position]. 

 

Next, there is an argument , especially if they're servitor crewed or operated from the gunnery position, for the fire-arcs they have at present. I'm imagining that the Astartes pattern would have a slightly different baseline operating pattern than its Imperial Army or Guard equivalents - hence a greater emphasis on forward firepower and higher-speed insertions rather than as much emphasis upon loitering [although this is countermanded somewhat by the chin-mounted lascannons - which should allow it to bring heavier firepower to targets outside of its frontal arc than the baseline], no doubt partially beceause the transported payload is so much deadlier, more heavily equipped, and less squishy. 

 

However, i'd suggest there may *also* be an argument for waist/hip mounts along hte lines of the Guard Vendetta, and perhaps not entirely dissimilar to the sorts found on the Storm Eagle [albeit those are twin-mountings in ball turrets, which may be weight impracticable, for a start] . The potential advantage of this would, as implied earlier, be a greater array of fire, especially for suppressive purposes, deployable in each side arc - albeit at the cost of removing the capability of each heavy bolter to fire forwards, yet with the potential benefit of extending backwards each arc towards the tail, and therefore making it more useful if 'circling' or providing aerial support while hovering against incoming ground-based hostiles seeking to overwhelm a deployed landing of Marines *without* as much chance of having to turn the whole aircraft. 

 

But yeah, I can see why they are where they are atm, anyway.

 

A final thought pertains to the transport capacity. Both in terms of what it might be - whether it's teh same twelve as the Guard version [on teh basis of 1:1 human-to-marine for other Imperial transport options a lot of the time] , whether it's somewhat or more reduced [on the basis of the heavier construction of the vehicle [both in terms of the much more significant protective plating for the cockpit and gunnery position as compared to the transparent cowlings for the mortal version in the same places; and also because Marines, who may very well be doing a lot more in the way of high-speed atmospheric re-entry, facing heavier concentrations of fire as they come in [coz it's Marines - why send them rather than Imperial Army if it *isn't* a tougher prospect] ... therefore perhaps heavier armour on the front facing?], the heavier weight and the power armour of the crew, whether that's 2 or 4, ; and/or the heavier weight and armour and size of the 'payload'] ... and also in terms of whether and how this might change the aesthetics of the design from the Guard pattern. As applies, for instance, the rear access ramp, and whether there's still side access doors. 

 

There may also be scope to do something different with *what's* deployed, as well; as i'm not sure about the idea of Marines speed-rappelling while it remains airborne, at least partially due to the serious strength of cabling which would be required  [which obviously won' effect landed disembarkment] [although who's to say that Marines simply jumping won't be able to do so from a reasonably great height without incident anyway] ; however there *may* be potential for utilizing it to disembark a small squad of assault marines/raptors while aloft. Thus effectively getting the jump-pack equipped Astartes closer to target, probably faster and saving on propellant for their personal back-mounted jets, and with an armoured sheath with additional standoff anti-tank or heavier anti-personnal firepower, all at far greater range than anything tney're bringing htemselves. Potentially a natural synergy. 

 

See personally, while i am now clealry doing some *serious* backseat/crew compartment/out the back hatch driving/flying ... if i were appraoching hte Valkyrie chassis for Astartes use, I'd probably not have started with 'patching over' an established pattern of Guard armament etc. ; but instead redesigned from the chassis up with a view to fitting it to Astartes' needs and characteristics. Which, i suppose, in this instance, is something akin to a flying Sicaran transporter [or maybe seriously upgunned Razorback] - squad level or fireteam high-speed, longer-range, reasonably armoured transport (also able to provide loitering heavy support); possibly more stealthy [relatively speaking] than a Storm Eagle [certainly a smaller profile] , unsure if more maneuverable. Potentially useful for small-headcount killteam insertions? Could form a viable baseline chassis somethng like  those XIXh Legion 'whispercutters' with some alterations, now that i think about it, without going all the way for a Corvus Blackstar in 30k. 

 

Aaaanyway .. i've proabbly gone wildly too far with my thoughts on the concept. 

 

What you've produced is legit as it is; and I look forward to seeing what else you might do with the Valkyrie chassis for Astartes use. And I do appreciate that you did this as a commission work for somebody, hence just  going with what a Guard Vendetta's got armament wise etc. 

 

Now as applies the Contemptor ... the foot-talons are excellent, and the reworking of the legs to enable swooping raptor attacks are a nice touch; as are the rest of the aesthetic stylings on the exterior. My only quibble is i'm not sure that the jump-jets are big slash powerful enough. I mean, on the surface of things, i'm rather sketch about the notion of jump-pack dreadnoughts to begin with ... but given the Mechanicum's stratos-battle automata, perhaps it should not seem so implausible. However, i suspect that the Vulturax etc. get around the 'bee problem' [something something flying brick something something jet-engine dinnerplates] by not using their side-mounted jets for remaining aloft, but rather for significant speed-boosts and maneuverability whle hovering - instead presumably employing anti-grav technology on their undersides to cushion the comparatively significant weight of the automata. 

 

What does this mean for the idea of a jump-pack Contemptor? Well, i suppose one use of the jump-jets would be to slow and otherwise control a Contemptor's descent [which might require greater directional mobility for the outputs than is usual for jump-packs for directional thrust] ; although if it's going ot take off again, larger and longer engines may be required imo. [one potential solution to weight issues might be to do as birds do and have 'hollow bones' somehow - although given the potential impacts upon durability of what's still a very large stompy war-machine, this might not be feasible/viable in practice; whether it entiails the use of lighter alloys, stupid composites [think the air-deployable light tanks with the magnesium iirc based armour] , different hydraulics [potentially innovative applications of seriously advanced grav-tech itself to get around even *having* the usual sort]]

 

Although I have also just noticed the shoulde-rmounted air-breaks [whcih may also work as extra ablative armour in a pinch :P  at the cost of potentially  mauling their effectiveness in their designed/intended affixed role] , and the torso-mounted forward-momentum jes. The leg-mounted airbrakes are a bit perplexing, as thteir mounting would appear to suggest they wouldn' be particulalry  useful when the legs/talons are in an attacking posture. Perhasp i have misapprehended and they're actually extendable maneuvering wings for use in rapid entry? I was also wondering what the devices on the lower inside calves were. 

 

 

But yeah uh, I do reckon that anti-grav plating's one key way to go in terms of enabling it to get and stay airborne, especially with smaller jets. Wouldn't be as powerful or as able to be on for lengthy periods of time as that seen on various AdMech bits and pieces or land speeders [or, er .. flying rhinos .. ] , which are after all designed o hover rather htan just jump and .. jump further. But would be a good supplemental. 

 

In an ycase, i do have to say congrats on taking a concept that sounds outlandish , and yet when you start to look at the elements you've put into the design - from the aesthetics to the technical detail you've put in to it, acquires that ring of "cool" and a measure of "plausibility". 

 

I'm aware i've said a few critical things in the above; and i hope htat it hasn't come across as brusque or lacking in enthusiasm or appreciation for your work on these two concepts. They're both very cool; and are efforts to feel very positive about. No doubt the clients are pleased :D 

 

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Hey folks, just dropping by for another brief breakdown of some designs I've been mulling over, this time for the Imperial Militia:

 

IMPERIAL MILITIA VEHICLES:

FAST ATTACK: Patroclus Strike Vehicle

 

 

* Pretty much a militia Infantry-Fighting Vehicle, just without the transport capacity, gets turret akin to the quad heavy stubber Sabre weapons platform (but enclosed), with the option to swap to a single TL heavy stubber and an Assault Grenade Launcher (the same type as seen on the Tauros / Grave Wardens). Doesn’t get the twin heavy stubbers on the hood (they’ll be intakes/ searchlights), but can take 2 hunter-killer missiles, comes in a squadron of 1-5

 

HEAVY SUPPORT: Satyr Assault Vehicle

 

 

* Urban fighting/ riot vehicle – gets 3 sponsons (one on each side & one on the rear) with heavy bolters/ flamers, plus a Chimera-sized turret with an autocannon or TL heavy stubber. Gets the rock-grinder plow but replaces the saw banks with frag assault launchers. Full enclosed & armoured so it’s basically a mobile bunker, available in squadrons of 1-3.

 

DEDICATED TRANSPORT: Tarandrus Recon Carrier

 

 

* Half-track incarnation of the Taurox, with beefed up environmental gear to function as an exploratory vehicle during the Great Crusade, but also dispersed in large quantities to post-compliance worlds. Replaces the turret (and cab roof) for a traverse-style (see Malcador) turret with an autocannon & co-axial heavy stubber – transport capacity of 10, available as dedicated transport for the same units as the Aurox. Available to the SA (with appropriate upgrades) too, but that version has a Lascannon with co-axial multi-laser in the turret instead.

 

IMPERIAL MILITIA AIRCRAFT:

 

FAST ATTACK: Salvus Strike-Fighter

 

* Multi-role fighter based off the same STC as the Arvus, with a reduced fuselage (the floor of the cockpit is the lowest point), extended wings and dorsal winglets, as well as an extended dual tail similar to the Valkyrie. Armed with a single Daedalus heavy multi-laser (see the Agriopan) mounted to one side of the cockpit, and a TL missile launcher to the other, with a variety of missile types available from an internal magazine. Background wise, not an outstanding aircraft, but easy to mass-produce and repair, as well as robust & capable of enduring a broad range of environmental conditions. Squadron of 1-3.

 

FAST ATTACK: Vengeance Interceptor

 

* Sanctioned retrofit of the Avenger, the idea being that post-compliance worlds don’t readily need strike-fighters, but may need interceptor craft for dealing with Xenos raids etc., as well being purpose-built on a number of industrial worlds / lesser Forge Worlds without the ability to produce more advanced interceptors. Design-wise, it’ll jettison the aft gunner position for a flare launcher, get more streamlined engine intakes, a remodelled tail and swept-back wingtips, as well as swapping the avenger bolt cannon for a quad-gun.

 

HEAVY SUPPORT: Accipiter Tactical Bomber

 

* There’s been no mention of the Aquilla being around in 30k, so I’ll probably take this in the direction of being derived from an incomplete STC template. Replaces the lowering transport compartment for an ordnance bay, with various bomb types designed for close infantry support. I’ll likely give it different wings to deviate from the distinctive aquilla look, & it’ll have a different tail design as well as additional winglets. The dorsal observation dome will be swapped for a defensive turret similar to the guard Tarantula, and it’ll keep the chin-weapon.

 

 

 

Also, for anyone who's not up to date with my other HH design thread, I did a bit of an update:

 

Quote

Hey folks, another post that’s both a record of various ideas for me and an update for y’all

 

Legiones Astartes Expansion: Vehicle Upgrades:

 

* Skyreaper Cannon: Option that allows vehicles with the Tank type that can select a pintle-mounted havoc launcher to instead purchase a single-cannon version of the Skyreaper Battery, also allows Land Speeders to swap out their primary weapon for one. Fluff will revolve around the Heresy’s drain on resources necessitating modifications of existing wargear to operate in an Anti-Aircraft role rather than relying on dedicated support, and turning to a modified version of older equipment (Mastodon’s Skyreaper) to protect line vehicles.

* Predator Weaponry: Trio of new Predator turrets, Quad Heavy bolter (variant mothballed after extensive use against Orks in the GC, re-emerges on both sides to counter Imperial Army units), Graviton cannon (only widely used pre-Heresy by Iron Hands, but bounty of the weapons claimed by Traitors from the spoils of Isstvan V start more widespread deployment), Volkite Combustor (similar to use of bolters post-Unification, early variant that fell to the wayside when demand outstripped ability to repair/manufacture & when Imperium reached the ability to mass-produce, other Legion Tanks had superseded need)

* Contemptor Cyclone Missile Launchers: Option to replace havoc launchers on all Contemptor variants with cyclones, background being that field trials of the launcher on Tyrant & Fulmentarus Terminators had been widely successful, but chaos of the Heresy had waylaid approval for retrofit, with individual forces making impromptu modifications that spread from conflict to conflict.

* Land Raider Squadron Options: Options for individual tanks in LR Battle Squadrons in a similar vein to Explorator Augary Web, decreasing transport capacity in exchange for an upgrade (will vary depending on LR chassis). Examples include vox-mapping system for Achilles which reduces Quad-Mortar’s scatter & enhanced generators for the Phobos & Proteus that make their TL-Lascannon Heavy 2 on a turn in which they don’t move. Multiple tanks of the same type in the same squadron will have to possess the same upgrade, and lore will revolve around widespread deployment of Legion reserves being first major outstripping of LRs’ role as transports.

 

Legiones Astartes Expansion: Terminator Patterns:

 

* Indomitus TDA: I wanna put this option on par with Cataphractii & Tartaros as an option for ‘Terminator Armour’ equipped units, so I’m probably gonna draw from Termies’ ability in 40k to Deep Strike as a given. Initially I considered just giving them the ability, but thought it might be a bit much, so I’m leaning towards allowing them to only scatter D6 & re-roll on the Mishap table – so you’d only take it for units you’ve acquired Deep Strike for, but it does at least have a role, while retaining the feel of being less powerful than the ‘relic’ patterns as time goes on.

* Arkonak TDA: I’ve decided to draw from this art of TDA for Arkonak armour, which’ll have the base Terminator Armour rules, but will have some kind of integrated grenade harness variant as standard (representing the 4 cut-out segments at the top of the torso) – not 100% on how I’ll handle this, but there’s a variety of directions I could choose.

* Aegis/Grey Knight TDA: I’ll decide on a different name for this, and I’ll make sure to explain its *not* Grey Knight armour, but a prototype developed on Terra just before the Heresy, using advances from across the developed patterns of TDA. As the 40k Custodes’ Allarus Terminators have a vague resemblance to the Grey Knights’ more open cowls, I’m tempted to give them Hammer of Wrath, as that’s one of the things that sets 30k’s Aquillon TDA apart rules-wise.

* Saturnine TDA: While the other 3 would be presented as options for any unit equipped with Terminator Armour, this’d only be an upgrade for 0-1 Legion Terminator Squads per Detachment (possibly with the restriction being removed with a Forge Lord Consul) and available on certain Legion-specific unit’s I’m writing (IW Archons & Salamanders’ Pyre Wardens). I’ve already made rules for them, so I’ll probably stick with them.

 

Mechanicum Expansion: Titan Defensive Upgrades:

 

* Warhound Head Weapons: As showcased on the cover to Betrayer, this’d give the option for Warhounds to gain a twin-linked head weapon – obvious option would b TL heavy bolter, but I’m also leaning towards a TL mauler bolt cannon given their use on the Warlord, and also the option to swap for a TL heavy flamer (mainly ‘cause the visual of a fire-breathing Warhound is fun).

* Warhound Shoulder Defenses: Mounted on top of the Warhound’s ‘shoulder’ pivots, this’d give the Titan some AA capacity with either two Icarus Lascannon or a tbd missile system

* Reaver Head Weapons: This’d place a more significant defensive weapon mounted ‘in’ the Reaver’s head, in place of one of the ‘eyes’ (although further to the outside edge, to allow for crew room) – either an avenger bolt cannon or laser destroyer

* Reaver Anti-Aircraft Options: Options to give the Reaver some AA punch, as either an upgrade to a carapace mega bolter, or an additional cluster missile type for the apocalypse launcher

* Reaver Defensive Turret: Basically, transplanting the Warbringer’s aft mauler bolt cannon turret to the same place on the Reaver, just below the large vents

 

Specific Legion Expansions:

 

* Designed for each of the Legions, these’d include 5 new Legion units, a specific new Consul type, new exclusive wargear options and probably a new Rite of War – I’ve already posted unit entries for some Legions here, but some could basically be replaced with wargear options for certain units, allowing for more interesting takes on each Legion.

 

Legion Auxilia Army Lists:

 

* Probably the most ambitious expansion, these would integrate entirely new units with modified Legion / Solar Auxilia / Imperialis Militia units to create a specific army list for each Legion’s Auxiliary forces. Might also justify a separate ‘generic’ Legion Auxilia list to allow me to collate vehicle variants specifically designed / allocated for Legion Auxilia.

 

Knight Yeomanry List:

 

* One I’ve pontificated on before, this’d basically be a list to represent the retainer forces various Knight Houses would maintain, with some interesting archaeotech and very modular unit entries to allow for the diversity of Knight world societies. Might also include Armigers, as a unit I’d originally envisioned for the list turned out to be weirdly similar to the mini-knights…   Would also have a special Allied Detachment FoC only useable with the Questoris Knight Army List.

 

Sub-Faction Lists:

 

* These’d be lists for smaller armies, some covered by existing ranges, so kinda in a similar vein to the Ordo Reductor list – examples include a Secutarii List, with additional units to the existing Hoplites & Peltasts (I’ve got designs brewing for variants on a few 40k AdMech units – Ruststalker-based Melee units that cling to Titans and drop on assaulting infantry anyone?). Another would be a Titan Legion list that uses the Leviathan FoC, and has Legio / Princeps upgrades, with Legio Cybernetica / the aforementioned Secutarii list the only available Allied detatchments.

 

Smaller Faction Unit Compilations:

 

* While the Legions & Mechanicum provide scope for essentially limitless new designs, smaller factions like the Talons of the Emperor or Questoris Knight list can’t really support as much expansion without resorting to redundant or derivative designs, so once I’d reached a point where I wouldn’t be able to justify further designs, I’d compile the units into single documents, maybe with some stuff to tie them into nice little packages (Warlord Traits, Relics, etc.).

 

Larger Faction Unit Compilations:

 

* Similar to above, but for lists like the Mechanicum & Legions with broader scope, I’d ideally release small compilations of similarly themed units (Legion Aircraft or Mechanicum Explorator forces for example), again with a bonus like a relevant Rite of War or new Magos variant to tie them all together.

 

Age of Darkness Themes:

 

 

* The introduction of Themes in Book 6 really piqued my interest, as introducing a level of variability ‘above’ Detachments adds some fascinating modularity. These have the potential to be really varied, and I’ve got a handful of ideas, but one that really sticks out is a Theme that could represent the resurrection technology of the Keys of Hel – the same Book’s ‘Xana Incursion’ Chapter mentioned that it effected vehicles, Legionaries and Cybernetica so having a theme that could effect multiple detachments / units outside the scope of a Rite of War seems a really fun approach.

 

 

 

 

 

On 1/20/2019 at 10:25 AM, Phatsquirre1 said:

That's freaking cool, now I'm curious as to what a Solar Auxilia variant might look like. Nice job IHF. 

 

Thanks! Can't imagine it's look hugely different from the standard version - while quite a few SA vehicles have a distinctive aesthetic, some (Colossus Bombard, all the Super-Heavies save for the Storm Hammer) feature the same design as standard 40k Guard stuff

 

On 1/20/2019 at 10:53 AM, Charlo said:

I like the little Astartes design queues on that. Would look great in 1st legion colours

 

Hey, I take commissions to colour stuff too  - thanks Charlo

 

On 1/20/2019 at 6:49 PM, Ryltar Thamior said:

 

On 1/20/2019 at 12:03 AM, Iron Hands Fanatic said:

 

 

It does feel kinda Night Lord-y - with sufficient added body parts of course 

What you did there. I see it  

And speaking of things I see which you did - i now see where you were referring to them stormhawk parts on that legion bomber, as also showing up. 

THe sponsons are an interesting approach; another possibility, albeit on a Valkyrie hull, would have been waist ball-turrets; but i can see why it was sponsons instead. ALthough i'd probably change up what looks on the surface like spotlights for targeting optics. Although maybe that's what's behind the grills anyway  

It's probably the angle, but i was wondering if the heavy bolter traverse puts it in the line of fire of one of hte lascannons if it's at full ninety degree rotation. [although the heavy bolter probably isnt' that long anyway, so my bad].

 

 

I liked the idea of having independently sweeping spotlights, and I figured there's enough sensor devices in the nose anyway, plus there's already targeters in the top of the Heavy bolters anyway. 

 

Nah, the HBs are significantly lower than the wing lascannon - the vendetta image I was templating the linewor off had significant foreshortening due to perspective warping, so all the stuff on the closest wing looks a bit squished together.

 

Quote

Nice additional touches with a) the dorsal fins/vains [not sure of the technical term] reminiscent of drop pod or landspeeder stylings [i see the tailfins have been similarly improved]; and  the panels rather like the sponson fittings for the modern predator and land raider, on the wings above the lascannon mounts. Really helps to tie it back to the rest of the Marine range. And while i do feel that atm it's looking rather more towards the Phobos sort of patterning than Deimos [and therefore, somewhat more 40k than 30k] .. that's probably a matter of personal perception on my part - and even if it were the case, not somthing that's entirely inappropriate anyway, as we've seen from other vehicles which have attested 30k availability. 

One *slight* point of concern I do have, however, is that in its present configuration, it might seem a bit overgunned. This is partially a result of just how heavily armed Vendettas are to begin with - I went off and checked, and yeah, it turns out that three sets of twin-linked lascannons plus two heavy bolters *is* standard. My issue with that is how one fits the generators, capacitors etc. for all six lascannons inside the hull whilst *also* i) not weighing it down tremendously and making it rather unwieldy in the air, especially when using VTOL capacity or otherwise employing the wingtip propulsion ii) not consuming a significant proportion of the cargo-bay which is otherwise required for its transport capacity [although the lack of difference between the Valkyrie and Vendetta when it comes to transport capacity may suggest that unlike teh Land Raider or Razorback, adding or removing large-scale lascannon firepower doesn't alter this for whatever reason... ] ; etc.

Again, none of that's on you - it's problems with the regular Vendetta. Although these may be exacerbated here somewhat by the crew being Astartes, and presumably quite likely in powered armour, with all the weight and space impacts which that may entail. 

However, in terms of changes you've made to the design - I note you've shifted the hull-mounted lascannon to a chin-mount. It makes sense, particularly for what's effectively a stay-around gunship rather than a 'true' strike aircraft. Although I do wonder whether twin lascannons, even slightly reduced in size, are a bit big for the space in the chin available, given the turreted housing for the behind-the-barrelly-bitz [my technical terminology is quite clearly on fire today. Hence why it's burning out, apace.] 

The additional complication with this is taht you've swapped out the sensor-gear from the nose in the regular Guard/Navy pattern for these lascannons - although i can't seem to see where it's migrated to on the Astartes pattern design. This might be an oversight on my part; or perhaps it's assumed to be integrated into the cockpit lenses/sensorial gear , (and/or) coz Astartes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I haven't finalised which forge world designation I'll go for in the final lore - might even go with Anvilus or an obscure Forge World (maybe one that got destroyed / turned traitor during the Heresy) to explain why there aren't any in 40k / we don't see Chapters using the Vendetta / Valkyrie.

 

Ammo capacity is something I always consider with this - as with FW's Vendetta conversion kit, the wing Lascannon would have dedicated batteries rather than using a generator, so wouldn't deplete internal space. The Nose Lascannon, while being in a relatively small mount, are energy weapons, so only require a power conduit - the weapon assemblies themselves are housed in the turret, while a dedicated power generator behind them in the lower nose provide power through sufficient relays - similar to Deimos sponsons. We've also seen various versions of shortened / shrunk lascannon without altered profiles, like the smaller under-slung lascannon on the current Vendetta's nose / Dracosan hull mount, or the Rapier Laser Destroyer.

 

Regarding transport capacity - current rules don't account for the bulk of power armour in determining transport capacity re: Astartes VS standard humans, so neither will this - however, it won't be able to transport Bulky or above models. As the Vendetta's wavered between having a transport capacity of 12 and 6 in different publications over the years, this version will stick in the middle with 10 - justified by the advanced components & tech of Marine-dedicated design reducing the bulk of various systems, which might also mitigate some of the lift issues although considering how little thrust some legion aircraft possess relative to their mass compared to this, it's not really a concern I have.

 

I'd imagine there's plenty of sensor gear in the nose, but one thing I will do if I ever adapt this for my own designs is adding sensors to the supports joining the wings to the hull - something I didn't have time to add to this. 

 

That said, this was a commission, and I rely on freelance art as my *only* source of income - I have to factor in clients' desires, cost and my own time into these, so these aren't necessarily gonna conform to the same design sensibilities / standards I have when designing stuff for myself - going over time I've charged for on a design isn't a smart move.

 

Quote

 

 

The second thing is about the heavy bolters. To begin with, who'se firring them. I mean, there are three ways to go with this. Either servitor crew for those [which makes a certain sense given htey're high rate of fire secondary weapons in a relatively limited traverse, at the cost of accuracy ], which gets around osme of the "crew in power armour" bits and pieces aforementioned; or additional Marines running 'em [which brings weight and space issues, and a cost-benefit tradeoff given they're in such a limited traverse]; or they're operated by the gunner in the second cockpit [which .. would have somewhere between three and five weapons being oeprated by the one crew position]. 

Next, there is an argument , especially if they're servitor crewed or operated from the gunnery position, for the fire-arcs they have at present. I'm imagining that the Astartes pattern would have a slightly different baseline operating pattern than its Imperial Army or Guard equivalents - hence a greater emphasis on forward firepower and higher-speed insertions rather than as much emphasis upon loitering [although this is countermanded somewhat by the chin-mounted lascannons - which should allow it to bring heavier firepower to targets outside of its frontal arc than the baseline], no doubt partially beceause the transported payload is so much deadlier, more heavily equipped, and less squishy. 

However, i'd suggest there may *also* be an argument for waist/hip mounts along hte lines of the Guard Vendetta, and perhaps not entirely dissimilar to the sorts found on the Storm Eagle [albeit those are twin-mountings in ball turrets, which may be weight impracticable, for a start] . The potential advantage of this would, as implied earlier, be a greater array of fire, especially for suppressive purposes, deployable in each side arc - albeit at the cost of removing the capability of each heavy bolter to fire forwards, yet with the potential benefit of extending backwards each arc towards the tail, and therefore making it more useful if 'circling' or providing aerial support while hovering against incoming ground-based hostiles seeking to overwhelm a deployed landing of Marines *without* as much chance of having to turn the whole aircraft. 

But yeah, I can see why they are where they are atm, anyway.

 

The sponson HBs would have a trio of control options - embarked passengers would be able to fire them from the transport bay, integrated servitors can control them for general supressive fire once they've disembarked, and they can also be controlled by the pilot, where they'd lock into a forward firing position in the same manner as the wing lascannon. The gunner only controls the chin lascannon, and optionally wing weapons if they're missiles rather than lascannon (as with the standard Vendetta / Storm Eagle wings, las is an upgrade from the baseline) - the pilot can control locked weapons as they operate on the same trajectory as the aircraft itself.

 

As to the justification for their arcs, I went with design - we've seen heavy bolters mounted like this (Thunderhawk, Stormwolf) on Astartes aircraft, and it allows them to be useful once passengers have disembarked, as well as giving them an actually wider firing arc than door guns (which are significantly obstructed by both the wings straight in front of them as well as big chunks of the fuselage).

 

Quote

A final thought pertains to the transport capacity. Both in terms of what it might be - whether it's teh same twelve as the Guard version [on teh basis of 1:1 human-to-marine for other Imperial transport options a lot of the time] , whether it's somewhat or more reduced [on the basis of the heavier construction of the vehicle [both in terms of the much more significant protective plating for the cockpit and gunnery position as compared to the transparent cowlings for the mortal version in the same places; and also because Marines, who may very well be doing a lot more in the way of high-speed atmospheric re-entry, facing heavier concentrations of fire as they come in [coz it's Marines - why send them rather than Imperial Army if it *isn't* a tougher prospect] ... therefore perhaps heavier armour on the front facing?], the heavier weight and the power armour of the crew, whether that's 2 or 4, ; and/or the heavier weight and armour and size of the 'payload'] ... and also in terms of whether and how this might change the aesthetics of the design from the Guard pattern. As applies, for instance, the rear access ramp, and whether there's still side access doors. 

There may also be scope to do something different with *what's* deployed, as well; as i'm not sure about the idea of Marines speed-rappelling while it remains airborne, at least partially due to the serious strength of cabling which would be required  [which obviously won' effect landed disembarkment] [although who's to say that Marines simply jumping won't be able to do so from a reasonably great height without incident anyway] ; however there *may* be potential for utilizing it to disembark a small squad of assault marines/raptors while aloft. Thus effectively getting the jump-pack equipped Astartes closer to target, probably faster and saving on propellant for their personal back-mounted jets, and with an armoured sheath with additional standoff anti-tank or heavier anti-personnal firepower, all at far greater range than anything tney're bringing htemselves. Potentially a natural synergy. 

See personally, while i am now clealry doing some *serious* backseat/crew compartment/out the back hatch driving/flying ... if i were appraoching hte Valkyrie chassis for Astartes use, I'd probably not have started with 'patching over' an established pattern of Guard armament etc. ; but instead redesigned from the chassis up with a view to fitting it to Astartes' needs and characteristics. Which, i suppose, in this instance, is something akin to a flying Sicaran transporter [or maybe seriously upgunned Razorback] - squad level or fireteam high-speed, longer-range, reasonably armoured transport (also able to provide loitering heavy support); possibly more stealthy [relatively speaking] than a Storm Eagle [certainly a smaller profile] , unsure if more maneuverable. Potentially useful for small-headcount killteam insertions? Could form a viable baseline chassis somethng like  those XIXh Legion 'whispercutters' with some alterations, now that i think about it, without going all the way for a Corvus Blackstar in 30k. 

Aaaanyway .. i've proabbly gone wildly too far with my thoughts on the concept. 

What you've produced is legit as it is; and I look forward to seeing what else you might do with the Valkyrie chassis for Astartes use. And I do appreciate that you did this as a commission work for somebody, hence just  going with what a Guard Vendetta's got armament wise etc. 

 

 

I've gone over capacity already, and access points are the same as the standard Vendetta - doors and aft ramp. No bulky models means no assault marines, but I'd imagine Astartes physiology allows for a decent drop without rappelling gear. Regarding your ideas for a dedicated design, I will be doing something with the Corvus Blackstar at some point, with the remit of a gunship designed to support and deliver independently-deployed 10-man squads.

 

Quote

Now as applies the Contemptor ... the foot-talons are excellent, and the reworking of the legs to enable swooping raptor attacks are a nice touch; as are the rest of the aesthetic stylings on the exterior. My only quibble is i'm not sure that the jump-jets are big slash powerful enough. I mean, on the surface of things, i'm rather sketch about the notion of jump-pack dreadnoughts to begin with ... but given the Mechanicum's stratos-battle automata, perhaps it should not seem so implausible. However, i suspect that the Vulturax etc. get around the 'bee problem' [something something flying brick something something jet-engine dinnerplates] by not using their side-mounted jets for remaining aloft, but rather for significant speed-boosts and maneuverability whle hovering - instead presumably employing anti-grav technology on their undersides to cushion the comparatively significant weight of the automata. 

What does this mean for the idea of a jump-pack Contemptor? Well, i suppose one use of the jump-jets would be to slow and otherwise control a Contemptor's descent [which might require greater directional mobility for the outputs than is usual for jump-packs for directional thrust] ; although if it's going ot take off again, larger and longer engines may be required imo. [one potential solution to weight issues might be to do as birds do and have 'hollow bones' somehow - although given the potential impacts upon durability of what's still a very large stompy war-machine, this might not be feasible/viable in practice; whether it entiails the use of lighter alloys, stupid composites [think the air-deployable light tanks with the magnesium iirc based armour] , different hydraulics [potentially innovative applications of seriously advanced grav-tech itself to get around even *having* the usual sort]]

Although I have also just noticed the shoulde-rmounted air-breaks [whcih may also work as extra ablative armour in a pinch :P  at the cost of potentially  mauling their effectiveness in their designed/intended affixed role] , and the torso-mounted forward-momentum jes. The leg-mounted airbrakes are a bit perplexing, as thteir mounting would appear to suggest they wouldn' be particulalry  useful when the legs/talons are in an attacking posture. Perhasp i have misapprehended and they're actually extendable maneuvering wings for use in rapid entry? I was also wondering what the devices on the lower inside calves were. 


But yeah uh, I do reckon that anti-grav plating's one key way to go in terms of enabling it to get and stay airborne, especially with smaller jets. Wouldn't be as powerful or as able to be on for lengthy periods of time as that seen on various AdMech bits and pieces or land speeders [or, er .. flying rhinos .. ] , which are after all designed o hover rather htan just jump and .. jump further. But would be a good supplemental. 

In an ycase, i do have to say congrats on taking a concept that sounds outlandish , and yet when you start to look at the elements you've put into the design - from the aesthetics to the technical detail you've put in to it, acquires that ring of "cool" and a measure of "plausibility". 

I'm aware i've said a few critical things in the above; and i hope htat it hasn't come across as brusque or lacking in enthusiasm or appreciation for your work on these two concepts. They're both very cool; and are efforts to feel very positive about. No doubt the clients are pleased  

 

 

 

 

The Contemptor's never something I'd design myself, and I don't have any interest in porting it over to my stuff, although I do find it interesting in light of the Blood Angels' new Contemptor-Incaendeus. I did my best to make it believable given the constraints of the commission, but as it's not something I'd realistically include in the remit of my designs, I wasn't super concerned with the practicality over confirming to a pre-existing aesthetic - the client did indicate it's not really mean to fly, just help it accelerate forwards and make shallow leaps.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Iron Hands Fanatic

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Scary new folks - I've been having ideas about...Squat...vehicles 

 

And they're all very round:

 

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/mz587de529.jpg

[Luna707]

You should definitely check this out:

https://www.amazon.com/MINIART-Soviet-SHAROTANK-Interior-Plastic/dp/B07HH5Z6YG

[Gederas]

The ball/wheel tank is actually a legit thing the Soviets came up with during WWII.

 

This is one of the biggest of them all, the Protivotank (

Edited May 22, 2019 by Gederas

[malika666]

Here's a design I did, maybe it'll inspire you: link.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Thanks for the input on the sphere-tanks folks, it'll probably be something I'll have idling in the back of my mind for a while but a fun little exercise nonetheless.

Just a quick update with a rough sketch to stop this thread from completely stagnating, but having gone over Malevolence, I'm in the process of altering my original Mauler ruleset to represent the Kratos Support Tank, as it fits the description pretty well - main alterations will include turning the turret weapon into a cannon with both direct fire & barrage profiles, as well as downgrading it from Super Heavy to just Heavy.

As a result, I've been figuring out a redesigned mauler chassis, and did a rough sketch to set it out in my head:

I'll probably alter the profile of the tracks a bit, as they look a bit generic/ similar to the Land Raider, and I'll likely flatten the cabin as it resembles the Sicaran's a little too closely, but I think it's pretty representative of the overall design I have in mind. In terms of armaments, the turret weapon is a quad-barreled storm cannon, which'll probably have a ruleset similar to the Deredeo's TL anvilus autocannon, but with a range shortened to 36", maybe swapping Sunder for Rending. Sponsons will start out as TL heavy bolters that can be swapped for TL lascannon, and the hull mini-turret (probably a pintle mount rules-wise) will be a combi-bolter in accordance with the original Mauler art below, swap-able for a heavy flamer.

Edit: I'm actually thinking of giving the turret weapon a unique special rule to represent the 4 barrels raining successive blows against a single point on an enemy vehicle's armour to chew through it - basically, for each glancing or penetrating hit scored against a single target with an Armour value, successive hits with the weapon are resolved at -1 AP (only applies to hits against the same target made as part of the same shooting attack). So because the weapon's Heavy 4 (Twin-Linked) & AP 4, if you pen or glance with all 4 shots, the 2nd shot is AP 3, the third is AP 2 and the 4th is AP 1. Obviously I'd have to wrangle the wording so it's simple and clear, but I like the feel of it.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Iron Hands Fanatic

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Ended up painting a full battle scene as part of a commission to design an 'Abyssal Submarine' for the BotL's Scions Hospitalier:

 

[bluntblade]

That might need to go in their Legion codex.

[STC Logisengine]

That mauler looks really nice, and I like the idea of battering down armor with a succession of heavy kinetic shells, pulverising and shattering rather than penetrating per se.

I think you need to take another look on the hatch in front of the sponson though, the placement is a bit awkward as you have to move the lascannons 90* from the hull to open it and there is quite too little room for the wheels beneath the tracks and the hatch to coexist.

 

I do quite like the vendetta, good work on that!

 

I have been scratchbuilding a flyer of my own design this past week that I hope to finish by the end of next week, I think you'll enjoy that one :P
 

[Zuvassin]

That Legion Vendetta concept is amazing.

 

Owning two Valkyrie kits (and not playing 40k), I'd love to find a way to use or proxy them into my Iron Warriors or militia forces.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

That mauler looks really nice, and I like the idea of battering down armor with a succession of heavy kinetic shells, pulverising and shattering rather than penetrating per se.

I think you need to take another look on the hatch in front of the sponson though, the placement is a bit awkward as you have to move the lascannons 90* from the hull to open it and there is quite too little room for the wheels beneath the tracks and the hatch to coexist.

 

I do quite like the vendetta, good work on that!

 

I have been scratchbuilding a flyer of my own design this past week that I hope to finish by the end of next week, I think you'll enjoy that one

 

 

Oh yeah, it's a really rough doodle that I never intended to serve as a basis for any design, I just thought the overall look was neat and I hadn't posted in a while, there are a ton of issues like that in the pic, but I'd never let those kind of issues through to the final design.

 

Oh cool, I'll check your threads 

 

That Legion Vendetta concept is amazing.

 

Owning two Valkyrie kits (and not playing 40k), I'd love to find a way to use or proxy them into my Iron Warriors or militia forces.

 

Thanks! There should be AoD - compatible rules for the standard Imperial Guard Vendetta either in their 7th edition Codex or whichever Imperial Armour book covers the Guard, you could just use those as a proxy for the meantime (I will eventually make a ruleset for it).

[Zuvassin]

Right now my plan is to basically run the two I have as proxy Arvus Landers with armoured cockpits for my militia force.

[STC Logisengine]

*sneaks*

 

you can make rules for it you know... you know you want to!

 

(sorry for pic-posting :) )