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.

since forgeworld botched making the Ragnarok when they did the Death Korps i thought i'd propose some rules for one, so here it goes
Ragnarok Battle Tank 180 points each Heavy Support Choice
Front armor 14 Side Armor 14 Rear Armor 11 BS 3
Unit Composition: between 1 and 5 Ragnarok Battle Tanks
Unit Type: Tank
Wargear: Turret mounted Ragnarok battle cannon (range 68” strength 9 AP 4 Ordinance 1, 3” blast), 2 turret mounted heavy bolters, hull mounted lascannon, extra armor, searchlight, smoke launchers, rough terrain modifications
Options: may replace heavy bolters for heavy stubbers for free, heavy flamers for free or plasma cannons for +50 points. May take a pintle mounted storm bolter or heavy stubber for +10 points. May take a hunter killer missile for +10 points. May take camo netting for +25 points per tank.
Special Rules
Lumbering: The Ragnarok was built for survivability rather then speed. As such it may only move D6 inches per turn but may fire all weapons despite moving

Questions and comments are welcome

The horrible movement kills it. Might as well take a Basilisk.

true, but it's not designed for speed but maybe 2D6 inches would be better?

Just give it lumbering behemoth and call it a day. The Ragnarok is fairly similar to the Leman Russ anyway.

normally i would, but i want this tank to differ from the russ hence the reduced speed

Then just let it move like a baneblade, 6" and fire everything

Also, the battle cannon is kind of bad for that cost, S9 AP3 large blast, 72" range sounds more like it, or maybe jsut a normal battlecannon I don't recall the ragnarok having a different main gun

Maybe you could give it a max speed of 6"?
Or 6"+D6" like the Leman, but have it roll 2D6 and always choose the lowest?

You could make the squad size 2-5, having a larger unit makes the low movement more annoying/a weakness.

Another thing, why does it have side armour 14?

Could you make it 13/13/11 and 2 structure points instead?

Banesword wrote:Maybe you could give it a max speed of 6"?
Or 6"+D6" like the Leman, but have it roll 2D6 and always choose the lowest?

You could make the squad size 2-5, having a larger unit makes the low movement more annoying/a weakness.

Another thing, why does it have side armour 14?

Could you make it 13/13/11 and 2 structure points instead?

it's not a super heavy, it's just an up armored russ type tank that moves much slower and has a slightly different weapon

To me it's the AP4 that kills it. I can get a Basilisk for cheaper and drop AP3 big template all over the place, or I can get a Leman Russ, and trade one strength for AP3. I'd rather have a regular battle cannon than this thing. The best use I can see for it is using it as a mobile cover save for my infantry/Lemans....but even then it's no more surviable against melta or close combat than a Demolisher...so why wouldn't I just take one of those instead?

ChrisWWII wrote:To me it's the AP4 that kills it. I can get a Basilisk for cheaper and drop AP3 big template all over the place, or I can get a Leman Russ, and trade one strength for AP3. I'd rather have a regular battle cannon than this thing. The best use I can see for it is using it as a mobile cover save for my infantry/Lemans....but even then it's no more surviable against melta or close combat than a Demolisher...so why wouldn't I just take one of those instead?

valid points, i originally made it AP 3 but felt it too over powered considering the increased side armor and lack of better weapons during the Krieg civil war

Think of it like this: There's the Leman Russ, the Basilisk, and the Manticore. They all have specific advantages over the tank you're proposing that allow them to fulfill their specific roles very well.

The advantages you've given your interpretation of the Ragnarok do very little to give it any specific value. Simply put, it does some things well, but other vehicles do those specific things better, and what's more, their weaknesses aren't as glaring as your Ragnarok's.

Simply put, if you lined up all the IG tanks and the Ragnarok as you've written it, although I could think of various specific uses and purposes for each tank, the Ragnarok has absolutely nothing to justify its use over anything else.

true, i made these rules and the tank itself for fluff reasons nothing more or less i just wanted to get an opinion on the rules from everyone here to see if they were acceptable or not

Get the current epic rules for it.

Battle Cannon w/ 60 inches Range + 2 Heavy Stubber turrets.
Armour matches Leman Russ. Costs, too.
Is treated as a Lumbering Walker for movement purposes (and nothing else.) Is not allowed to run. (So 6' max, fire all weapons)

May replace Lumbering with Lumbering Behemoth (equal to give him the ability to run)...


Actually, LUMBERING is defined by Imperial armour: Move up to 6 inches, If vehicle has structure points may pivot max. 45° after move, fire all weapons.
So not only D6..


Plus; no plasma on this baby - it was supposed to be a replacement for the basic russ (which, by the time it's fluff was written, was not even able to get Plasma sponsons, these were Demolisher only). HBs or Autocannons, at max.

Dang this thing seems overpowered.

I say make it ALWAYS have to use Lumbering behemoth, lower its armor to 14 - 12 - 10 (because it's supposed to be made as quick as possible, not survivability), and give it only a Battle-cannon and a hull-mounted weapon with no choice for side-sponsons.

If you look at the actual model, it's really just a huge turret and a pretty short-flat body, plus a machinegun. No room for any side-sponsons.

grayspark wrote:Dang this thing seems overpowered.

I say make it ALWAYS have to use Lumbering behemoth, lower its armor to 14 - 12 - 10 (because it's supposed to be made as quick as possible, not survivability), and give it only a Battle-cannon and a hull-mounted weapon with no choice for side-sponsons.

If you look at the actual model, it's really just a huge turret and a pretty short-flat body, plus a machinegun. No room for any side-sponsons.

It's slower than a Leman Russ in epic, has same armor save + reinforced armor.

Epic Swordwind: It was decided that the Ragnarok did not
need to be fast, but did need to be capable of dealing
with the treacherous terrain of no man’s land. Likewise
it did not require very long range, as visibility was limited
under the pollution-clouded skies of Krieg. But most of
all, it needed to be as simple as possible to construct and
use, as then it could crush the opposition through sheer
weight of numbers. The result was an ugly, slab-sided
vehicle, but one that admirably fulfilled the needs of the
time.

grayspark wrote:Dang this thing seems overpowered.

I say make it ALWAYS have to use Lumbering behemoth, lower its armor to 14 - 12 - 10 (because it's supposed to be made as quick as possible, not survivability), and give it only a Battle-cannon and a hull-mounted weapon with no choice for side-sponsons.

If you look at the actual model, it's really just a huge turret and a pretty short-flat body, plus a machinegun. No room for any side-sponsons.

point disproven

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

grayspark wrote:Dang this thing seems overpowered.

I say make it ALWAYS have to use Lumbering behemoth, lower its armor to 14 - 12 - 10 (because it's supposed to be made as quick as possible, not survivability), and give it only a Battle-cannon and a hull-mounted weapon with no choice for side-sponsons.

If you look at the actual model, it's really just a huge turret and a pretty short-flat body, plus a machinegun. No room for any side-sponsons.

point disproven

Fail... fan made Leman Russ model to "resemble" original GW-design ( Looks better than original LR, anyway..

Your point disproven. There are no side sponsons.

motorhead1945 wrote:

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

grayspark wrote:Dang this thing seems overpowered.

I say make it ALWAYS have to use Lumbering behemoth, lower its armor to 14 - 12 - 10 (because it's supposed to be made as quick as possible, not survivability), and give it only a Battle-cannon and a hull-mounted weapon with no choice for side-sponsons.

If you look at the actual model, it's really just a huge turret and a pretty short-flat body, plus a machinegun. No room for any side-sponsons.

point disproven

Fail... fan made Leman Russ model to "resemble" original GW-design ( Looks better than original LR, anyway..

Your point disproven. There are no side sponsons.

yes there is, look closely at the little turrets they are the the sponsons

Sorry, probably my English-German skills are inappropriate..... in the german Codex, it's Seitenkuppeln, side-sponsons...
I did assume that it is only called a "sponson" when it is mounted on the side of the hull.

Honestly those things on the side look like Escape Hatches.

In a tank so crowded as such, not only do they not have room for side-sponsons and ammo (especially in the turret of all places), they need at least one area to quickly get in or out.

But honestly, no matter what way you look at it, there are no sponsons.

By the way though, that Fan-Made model looks great, even if it's only SIMILIAR to the real ma coy.

I would say that to settle this arguement that those would be side sponsons similar to that of the Leman Russ. It can clearly turn to look directly to the sides and a little farther back but no further, just like the Leman Russ's sponsons.

Now in regards of the rules, what you already have established is a good start. but if you are making much closer to the fluff one thing you could do is make it cheaper perhaps. They even said that it was supposed to be built quickly and cheaply, and win through weight of numbers. Keep the front and side armor the same but reduce the rear. And maybe reduce the range of the gun and make it AP 3 like they were saying
sorry that I'm posting this so far from when you started this but I'm kinda intrigued

grayspark wrote:Honestly those things on the side look like Escape Hatches.

In a tank so crowded as such, not only do they not have room for side-sponsons and ammo (especially in the turret of all places), they need at least one area to quickly get in or out.

But honestly, no matter what way you look at it, there are no sponsons.

By the way though, that Fan-Made model looks great, even if it's only SIMILIAR to the real ma coy.

Wait... why do those escape hatches have gun barrels then?

Fafnir wrote:

grayspark wrote:Honestly those things on the side look like Escape Hatches.

In a tank so crowded as such, not only do they not have room for side-sponsons and ammo (especially in the turret of all places), they need at least one area to quickly get in or out.

But honestly, no matter what way you look at it, there are no sponsons.

By the way though, that Fan-Made model looks great, even if it's only SIMILIAR to the real ma coy.

Wait... why do those escape hatches have gun barrels then?

Shoot someone on the way out?