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.

I'm considering adding a few walkers to my IG army. The walkers that I'm planning to add will be based off of the ones in the links below, but would I get away with using them as say Basilisks? The army that I'm building right now is rather just a collection of models based off of things that I think look cool and fit with the theme I'm going for (ie Kereboros style infantry ^^), so the army is general's got a lot of fluffy proxying going on already. I play socialably not competatively and its my thinking that if I pull out an army that's full of character and looks completely different from the generic space marine norm that I'm used to, the guy's that I usually play'll should be alright with it, but I'm wanting to ask other gamers beforehand (this army's been kind of a little secret of mine see, I'm wanting to outdo my previous contributions to my local store's cabinets by a stretch ).

So yeah, could these be used as Basilisks in friendly games? Your opinions?

http://www.keiththompsonart.com/pages/panzerfluch.html

http://www.keiththompsonart.com/pages/mbw.html

Oh and these are some similar style walkers made by another Dakka user. He's using them as Predators and Whirlwinds respectively:

This isn't so much a rules question as something simply to ask your opponent.

There are no rules covering conversions or substitute models. It's entirely up to the people playing.

I use tons of walkers in my mechanicus IG army
the trick to getting approval from 99% of opponents is to make a base that is the same size as the vehicle it is substituting.

Or just to make sure that it looks really, really cool, and they won't even notice that it has a different profile.


For my money, the taller profile of the walker balances out the smaller footprint.

I was considering basing them on either 80 or 90mm bases (probably the prior), which are around about the same size, if not wider, than your standard Basilisk chasis. Its the using a walker as a tracked vehicle that I was wondering about really? Is it too much of a stint? My mates would probably allow me to field them-just so they can as ever wipe me from the table-, but I do try and get games against other gamers, and my army may be a bit too much for them with all the proxying. =/

Oh yeah, and I'm intending to make these things pretty big-ie same height as the basilisk's gun shield, if not larger- in keeping with the original concept designs-those things look more like tanks than sentinals.

What your vehicle model's mode of transportation is does not actually matter; so long as you are using the correct rules.

If you plunk down a Walker-bassie and say it is a Bassie in all respects I will allow you to play with it(especially if it looks cool; although it should have 4 legs as it is firing an Artillery piece).

However, If you Plunk down your Walker-Bassie model and tell me that it is a Walker that mounts an Earthshaker+ Heavy bolter, has appropriate Armor Values for a Bassie but include WS3, S5, I3, and 1A; and follows all the normal Walker rules; I am going to say no-way

First thing i thought when i saw that sucker in the first link was "Chromehounds"

Assuming of course that you are informed me before the game what these are, I would have absolutely no problem at all with you using them, and would applaud your inventiveness.

I suppose its got the added benefit that anyone who says 'no' probably wouldn't be much fun to play against anyway, and will save you a couple of hours of your life.

Those look very cool there, I wouldn't have a problem with them being proxied as other walkers or dreadnoughts...I don't know about basilisks though, that's a bit of a stretch for me!

Bipedal giant robots should not stand up to fire artillery.

If you want to use a walker to replace a tank, you really should go and get one of the many fine four legged walker models. Or get two legged walkers from one of the series that bother to do reasonable things like build counterbalances and braces so that the bipedal walker doesn't become prone upon firing.

The first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was the Atreides Minotaurus. It's even got a nice big gold Imperial Eagle on the front.

I approve of mecha artillery.

As long as you explained to me what it was, and it looked cool I'd say 'sure'. If you just stuck a Basilisk gun ontop of a dread or something, I'd be hesitant. But yeah, a good way to allow any conversion is to just make it so cool your opponent says 'woah, cool model!' and ignores any of the nitpickiness.

And as was said, anyone who goes and bitches about your model not being the right dimensions probably wouldn't be much fun to play against anyway/

It should be okay. I agree with Solkan though - an artillery mech should be four or six legged.

The walker with the Whirlwind launcher looks like the recoil would knock him over.

L_Dawg wrote:The walker with the Whirlwind launcher looks like the recoil would knock him over.

Looks are misleading. Rocket artillery has far less recoil than tube artillery.

So, upon hearing you say "basilisk walker" basically.. i looked at your links.. and thought, like others before me, "that thing couldn't stand through the recoil"

but i scrolled over a couple of pictures and saw this

http://www.keiththompsonart.com/pages/medved.html

Why don't you base it off this thing? seems 100% more viable (and conveniently already has the giant cannon and blast shield you intended to add!)

I vote for the Juggernaut design. In-game it has a deployable "third leg" that helps it withstand the recoil of it's three cannons.

Heh, thanks for the opions guys. ^^ At the mo the model's ending up as a mix of the two- plus the whirlwind thing (just making this one out of spare bits, others'll be plasticard when I can get hold of some). I'm not all that bothered about the thing actually being practical under the laws of real world pysics-this is 40k¬¬-, just as long as it looks cool and not too over the top. I'm not really into the four legged ones or the ones that are pretty much a walking cannon, its the more the MGS Gecko stlye of walkers that I want to go for with this-whilst having that 40k bulkiness and impracticallity about them. Turning it into a Hyrda just for pysics sake was an idea, but I've already got a pair of half track mounted ones in the works. It doesn't have to end up as a Basilisk, that's just what I enterpretted the concept art as, but having a special minature for this rarely used piece of artillery would brighten up my day.^^ So, uh, yeah, all I need now is a suitable giant cannon.

I say go with it. Your models balance out their smaller footprint by being taller, and they look cool. Don't worry about the whole argument that they need to be four legged to be artillery mechs. Who knows what kind of locking mechanisms, recoil compensators and balance gyros that they have in place?

So long as you make it look cool there is no reason why you can't field it.
I too am going to do the same as you, but I'm going to get some sentienls and make afew Fire Ants (counts as Hellhounds) as well as some Sha Yu or Bushwacker battle mechs (counts as Leman Russes).
Do what you like, its a big univers and whom knows what forgeworld makes what

I also support mecha artillery. I just support it with more legs than you.



But yeah, definitely need more than two legs for any heavy artillery piece. For rocket and lighter machine-guns, two legs is fine, but really anything heavier needs more recoil support.

The pose that I've set it in at the moment is as if its firing its main gun, with the legs in a position that shows them to be compensating for this. The torso could probably be mounted on four, but I've already built up a set of legs for it and I think that they look bulky enough withstand the recoil-lower sections are bulked up and have a load of pistons about the feet-with the rear of the four toes-like the dreadnought ones- being significantly larger than the others. Meh, this is 40k, not real life, where things work if you can come up with good enough BS reason for them to. ^^

Only problem now is that I need a bigger base than 60mm because of those damn legs. ¬¬

I think a walker with a rad underslung grenade launcher (earthshaker cannon) would be awesome.

Its ended up becoming something like the 40k version of a Gekko out of Metal Gear Solid, sept with a Medusa Siege gun (smallest piece of artillery barring the Griffon that I could get to look right, its the old marine demolisher cannon barrel + a cut down russ barrel) mounted awkwardly on the side. Its been an awkard build, but I think that it fits the basic premise of the rules, other than the whole youknow tracks things. The gun's mounted so it can't pivot on the spot, only increase or decrease its incline as much as a Medusa could-if you want to turn the main gun the whole machine would have to move. I'll probably get it done by tomorrow evening, if I can honestly be bothered filling in all those flimming gaps.

I'm currently working on a walker for my hydra guns. Looks pretty crappy at the moment, but i'll post pictures when my camera recharges.