Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

HI everyone I have decided to make a model of an anti tank gun to use with my Death Korps of Krieg. I have made spme rules for it, and would like some feedback from other 40K players. I plan on using bits and a model of a German pak 43 Antitank gun along with a Krieg Artillery crew to create this weapon. Let me know what you all think.

Rapier Anti-Tank Gun
120 Points
Weapon Range S AP Type
Rapier ATG 72" 8* 1 Heavy blast
BS 3
Crew Imperial Guard
Crew required 3 minimum.
BS Modifiers From Crew
Crew with Range Finder +10 Pts +1 to BS /only 1 allowed
Imperial Scanner +20 Pts +1 to BS/only 1 allowed

Ammo types Cost Str
Durasteel round 0 8 degrades with range
Krak round 5Pts per round 8 reguardless of range -2 to bs
Melta round 10Pts per round 9 reguardless of range -2 to bs
Adamantium 20Pts per round 9 degrades with range +1 to bs

Ammo type Range to Target 0"-24" 25"-48" 49"-72"*
Durasteel 8str 7str 6str
Krak 8str* 8str* 8str*
Melta 9str 9str 9str
Adamantium 9str 8str 7str
Number of Rounds allowed per gun
Durasteel unlimited
Krak 6
Melta 4
Adamantium 2

History
Developed on Krieg by the Adeptus Mechanicus, the Rapier anti-tank gun, was
developed to stop heavily armored priority targets other weapons cound not
engage at longer ranges. Its basic ammo consists of discarding sabot durasteel
rounds, but other more potent ammunition has been created as well.

Special rules
*Krak and Melta rounds do no rely on velocity to penatrate armor, instead they
use chemical or explosive means to penatrate there for do not degrade with
range. But due to there slow velocity they are difficult to aim causing a -2
to the weapons balistic skill.
Adamantium rounds have such a high velocity and flat trajectory it is easier
to aim them and they gain a +1 to weapons balistic skill
**Melta or adamantium rounds that gain a glancing hit or penatrate gain a +1
to vehicle damage table page 61 of rulebook

Gen.Von Riech

Way too complicated, basically useless as anti-tank would be better at killing heavy infantry. You want a really rapier profile?

Str 9, ap1, heavy 2 twin linked, 60 inch range.

That would still not be worth 120 points.

LAterly, if memory serves the Rapier was relegated to an infantry support Multi Laser?

Thank you for the feed back. I should have the model done by the end of march and I will post a few pics. I will test a few variations of rules for the gun, to see what works well for it. Again thanks

Gen. Von Riech 412th Krieg Regiment

Your best of using the rules for the destroyer tank hunter found in imperial armour 1. Your rules are just not like a anti tank gun with blast and what not

wasn't the original rapier basically a twin linked multi melta? its been a long time since i used one last

lanman wrote:wasn't the original rapier basically a twin linked multi melta? its been a long time since i used one last

If your multi-melta had a 72" range - yes.

Rapier's were armed with something big (or various something's big), and it had, generally, a nice range too it.

It may have been, I am creating a custom weapon for use with my Imperial Guard Krieg Army. I may have to rename it, but I am looking for a good balance between capability and points. THis is only one conversion I am working on, the othe being a Tank. Both should be done within the month, I'll post pictures as soon as I get them done.

I don't really like shooting down people's ideas without having a well thought out reason/discussion on the matter. But this thing just doesn't earn that right.

My vote?

Three thumbs down and a big fat NO!

Its alright, opinions will be varied. I will still create this weapon, and use it, all I am trying to do is here from other players what they feel a balanced set of stats should be. I have always had issues with purists so to speak, that have problems with anything not printed in the codex. Usually because they have trouble being able to adapt to tactical situations they have not been able to study at great leangth. But I take comfort that GW encourages such conversions, and creations. Anyway I will post the model when it is completed, and I hope to have some workable stats for it by then.

glowgos wrote:Your best of using the rules for the destroyer tank hunter found in imperial armour 1. Your rules are just not like a anti tank gun with blast and what not

I will look into those rules thank you. Being I am new to Warhammer 40k I am still trying to find the middle ground so to speak. When I get done with the rules and model I will post them along with why and how the weapon works. Thank you again I'll check it out.

Gen.Von Riech wrote:I have always had issues with purists so to speak, that have problems with anything not printed in the codex. Usually because they have trouble being able to adapt to tactical situations they have not been able to study at great leangth. But I take comfort that GW encourages such conversions, and creations.

Hardly.

Most of the "Old Hands" of WH40k have their own little ideas they like (if they don't now, I'm sure they have in the past) and have play tested during their careers. The thing is, every army has their "feel" and the Fluff, if you break from these, it will become a "What the Hell?" unit in the army. Guard, for instance, don't have anything coming close to being similiar to what you are proposing. It doesn't fit any fluff or lines of fluff, nor can any reasonable fluff be made up for it other than some proto-type. If you want to use it at your regular hobby shop, and they let you, by all means, go right ahead. But you aren't posting on your personal hobby shop's forum. You're posting on an international forum.

Basically, your weapon idea is so far from Guard SOP and KISS that it has no right existing what-so-ever. If it were a suggestion like a super-boosted Lascannon ( S9 AP1 R72" Heavy 1 Melta) fitted to the Russ Turret, I'd be "Hells Yeah!" Because there are weapons in the past like that (Rapier for instance?), in the fluff like that, and it fits Guard's SOP and KISS.

Skinnattittar wrote:I don't really like shooting down people's ideas without having a well thought out reason/discussion on the matter. But this thing just doesn't earn that right.

My vote?

Three thumbs down and a big fat NO!

P.S. : We get it, you're making a model, you don't have to keep saying it at the end of each post you make.

P.S.S. : I do appologize if this post reads a bit harsh, that is not my intent.

Just so you know the Rapier is a quad barrelled lascannon that focused the beams to make it extra lasery. It doesn't fire solid rounds and was only useful to trying to zap tanks.

By all means try to bring it back but remember, don't make new rules for the sake of having rules. Thats the way of evil things like Codex Craftworld Eldar.

Just do something simple like using the Artillery rules, 2 guardsmen and a rapier make up the unit and you get the option to add extra rapiers with gun crew (decide some reasonable points value) upto a total of 3.

The gun itself is a perfectly normal armour 10 just like all other artillery in the game, doesn't have strange gagets to alter BS and only has gun with a statline like;

Range 60", str 10, ap 2, Heavy 1, twinlinked

Job done.

Hymirl wrote: Just do something simple like using the Artillery rules, 2 guardsmen and a rapier make up the unit and you get the option to add extra rapiers with gun crew (decide some reasonable points value) upto a total of 3.

The gun itself is a perfectly normal armour 10 just like all other artillery in the game, doesn't have strange gagets to alter BS and only has gun with a statline like;

Range 60", str 10, ap 2, Heavy 1, twinlinked

I would suggest making it a battery weapon, or have an entire squad dedicated to oparating it (6 Guardsmen including crew). Matches reality and makes general sense (two guys operating in the field what is essentially 4 Lascannons?). As for your stats of that weapon, I would maybe bump up the range to 72" and make it AP1. For god's sake the Lascannon is S9 AP2, more Lascannon should at least be AP1 (I think the Lascannon should be AP1 anyhow). Should probably be a vehicle dedicated weapon, but I am not opposing a troops based on either.

Well, its actually two guys are operating one quad-barrelled lascannon. Its not like you need to aim each one seperately, back when they had rules you only needed one operator who stood beside it holding a remote control.

Secondly a Rapier anti-tank gun is an anti-tank gun. Not an all purpose support weapon.

No, but you do have the weight of four Lascannons and the supporting systems for four Lascannons. Weight and maneuverability come into conflict here. Not only that, but it is an important piece of equipment, you wouldn't want two guys wandering around on their lonesome with it, you'll need multiple troops to handle communications with commanders, command the unit, provide protection from enemy infantry, someone to carry the snacks, someone to be polishing brass or boiling tea, another guy to provide comic phrases like "Stuff this down your pipe and smoke it!" when dramatic circumstances arise, ect... Back in 2nd Edition, things were a lot different, so having such a weapon with only two buddies was acceptable.

Secondly, exactly my point. There is a little entry for weapons firing on armor that points out (pleasantly) that AP 1 weapons have +1 on the Vehicle Damage Table. Somehow I think an anti-tank roled weapon should get that benefit.

I'm not trying to be rude but its pretty clear from what you're saying that you don't know what a Rapier anti-tank gun looks like.

Its on tracks. Like a SM thunderfire cannon. You don't need to pick it up.

Perhaps look at these rules, which helpfully includes pictures of the orignal model and is actually better than the one I made up, mostly because they where orginally written by Jervis Johnson but remained unoffical.

Yes, I quite know what one looks like, probably due to the fact that I have five! Well, had, I traded them a long time ago and I don't regret it (though mine were a different kind to what you pictured). So far, I don't think we've mentioned that we're using a self propelled weapon? Unless I missed it somewhere? So assuming we're talking about a new weapon HW for the Guard, it is going to be man-portable. i.e.; hump it. That's going to take manpower. Still, even if it were self-propelled, do you really want to play it with only two guys? At appropriate cost? A single sniper model has a great chance of knocking it out in two turns. A lucky Autocannon in one, before it even gets to fire. Not mentioning the plethora of other weapons that would be drumming for such a dangerous, easy KP, easily knocked off, weapon.

I have played warhammer fantasy for about 9 years now. I have many units which are standard Imperial, but I have also added units like Pikemen. I remember a battle where I had used them and after my victory one of the other players felt it was not right, anyway we called the rulz boyz and there answer to us was this, any unit can be used, and or created so as long as the people playing agree to it before the game. (everyone did agree as I was using the numbers from the dogs of war pikemen). Now that I am getting involved in 40k, I guess I like the idea of creating new and different units to use. Since I am new to Warhammer 40k I wished to get some feedback from more experienced players, as to what would be a fair balance of capability, and points cost. It was not my intent, nor my wish to have people tell me if I should create such a weapon or not. I will use this weapon in my games with other people I face only if they wish me to have it before the battle. As for the suggestion that the Imperial guard do not have such weapons, it was pointed out to me that the Imperium has a million worlds, and that no one knows every weapons system currently in use, and that such conversions are a welcome diversion from the same old generic list of units. If the name I wanted to use "Rapier" was already a weapons system, I will choose another name to call it. I will ask anyone who has a suggestion of what an Imperial Guard anti tank gun should be capable of,(the base model will be a german WWII Pak 43 of 1/48th scale, so it will be rather large) let me know what you feel would be a good set of specs, for such a weapon. Again thank you for your help.

Skinnattittar wrote: Unless I missed it somewhere? So assuming we're talking about a new weapon HW for the Guard, it is going to be man-portable. i.e.; hump it. That's going to take manpower.

Ah, good point.. well made. I mistakenly made a connection to the old rapier anti-tank gun, I do apologise.

[quoet=Gen.Von Riech]As for the suggestion that the Imperial guard do not have such weapons, it was pointed out to me that the Imperium has a million worlds, and that no one knows every weapons system currently in use, and that such conversions are a welcome diversion from the same old generic list of units.

I just got some new information on the New Imperial Guard Codex. I will base this on the Vanquisher Battle Cannon.

ORDNANCE Range Str. AP Type
Vanquisher Battle Cannon 96" 8 3 Ordnance 1/Blast
Vanquisher AT Shell 96" 8 3 Ord. 1, 2D6 Arm. Pen.

This seems to be what I was looking to do anyway, making a long rang tank killer. what do you all think?

Why don't you just use a Vanquisher then?

As Far as I know the Vanquisher will only be availible carried on a tank. In this way I can have a dismounted version, that will be cheaper. And its always a plus to create new models for use in the game I am awaiting my order to arive with the model and bits I need. but I am looking frward to creating this model.

Whats with the rounds? The rapier is a laser, is it not? Perhaps use your PAK 43 as a direct-fire earthshaker?

I pretty much agree with all the sentiments of just using a current weapon proxied with a different model. There isn't really a need for a strange new weapon here, as much as I like creating new rules. If you're new to the game (40k) you're probably better off getting to know the current weapons and weapons systems, tactics surrounding their use, ect... before you go galavanting off and creating new ones....

Gen.Von Riech wrote:I just got some new information on the New Imperial Guard Codex. I will base this on the Vanquisher Battle Cannon.

ORDNANCE Range Str. AP Type
Vanquisher Battle Cannon 96" 8 3 Ordnance 1/Blast
Vanquisher AT Shell 96" 8 3 Ord. 1, 2D6 Arm. Pen.

This seems to be what I was looking to do anyway, making a long rang tank killer. what do you all think?

Basically, a Vanquisher equivalent to the Earthshaker artillery platforms?

Couple ways to approach this. If it's a self-propelled piece, it's likely mounted on a Chimera chasis. If it's a towed piece (as was the Earthshaker platform), that's fine, too. Just remember the recoil on a main battle tank's cannon, and design your model accordingly. (Not that GW bothers with such things....)

Rules-wise, the Artillery rules provided in the book should be appropriate for a crewed direct-fire cannon like you're suggesting.

The original rapier was a set of 2 twin linked las cannons (so it got 4 shots back in the 2nd edition days). I don't see any need to really change it up much from that. If you want to make it some sort of uber super weapon, you could make it ap 1 and call it a day. In general though, keep it simple. There isn't any need for overly complicated rules (like differing stat lines based on range). There are already enough arguments about range, lets not add in a bunch more simply for one weapon.

I made these rules for the Rapier in 4th edition http://www.geocities.com/george.spiggott/rapier/rapier_v2.htm

Simplicity Simplicity Simplicity Simplicity. It needs more of it. If I was playing against this I'd probably try and force you to do a roll-off: On 1-3 it's a S9 AP1 Heavy 2 that goes 60" with BS4. On 4-6 it's S9 AP2 Heavy 4 BS3. Too complicated for my tastes and I have a feeling people would get very frustrated with it, especially when you can make it BS5 for 30 points.

And why bother giving it upgrades if you're the only one who's going to have access to it? I really like your ideas, but since it's not in a published volume I tend to think they'll be unnecessary. I vote for a simple profile, otherwise you'll have to explain all your differing options to each of your opponents every time you play and will probably get labeled as "that guy", who I'm sure you don't want to be.

George Spiggott wrote:I made these rules for the Rapier in 4th edition http://www.geocities.com/george.spiggott/rapier/rapier_v2.htm

Cool concept! And I like the use of the Modrian gunners. (Are those the Necromunda Rapier models or conversions?)

During 3rd Ed. I often fielded a "Rapier Laser Destroyer" in my IG army, and even brought it to a RTT. It was a "counts as" substitute for a Lascannon AT Squad. (I figured 3 shots was a pretty close equivalent to 2 twin-linked LCs.) It hard two IG crewmen and a servitor serve as "gunners" and three bodyguards serve as "loaders," allowing it to function as a Codex-legal unit instead of a home-brewed unit.

It's a pretty good way to use old models in the current rules; you can do the same thing with a Thudd Gunn (3x ML) or Mole Mortar (3x Mortars.) That said, I think a proper 72" range Rapier would be awesome for mega-battle games. :-)