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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Aww! That Carnifex just wants a hug!

Ok, looks like they're probably 30mm, as opposed to GW's which are 28mm Heroic, which makes them look 30mm but proportioned wrong.

The base also looks a little bit taller as well. They will come off that base right?

To answer your underlying questions: 40k and AT-43 miniatures are quite compatible, but not totally compatible.

Red blok infantry look like WW2 soviets, Red Blok battle armour and vehicles look like low tech guard or ork walkers.

Red Blok infantry - Communist imperial guard. mostly similar though all AT-43 guns are less unrelisticly proportioned, and the sizes of hands in particular change.
Red Blok battlearmour - Orky them up and you have meganobz, you need to add claws, you need not cut holes and add ork faces, but you could do.
Red Blok light striders - No direct analogy, but could be used as IG counts as chimera hull variants.
Molot = walking Hellhound
Red Blok heavy striders
Not big wenough for Baneblade easily big enough for a Russ defiler or Land Raider. Maybe a Battlewagon.


UNA look modern, thus tghat can do for Imperial guard, The tac arms are refined and upgunned marines/terminators and could ber used for Tau with some conversion. UNA vehicles could be of use for guard, marines because they look less backward, or even Tau in some conditions.

UNA infantry - Replacement modern NATO IG. Remember the weapons and hands are differently proportioned to those you would know. UNA heads would make excellent bitz for IG, some having open helmets some with kepi and some with hull lens masks.
UNA battlearmour - Stealthsuits so long as you hoof them up. possibly early terminator armour, though it looks more acvanced than Imperial tech so more likely power armour from the dark Age of Technology. Possible use to =I= players.
UNA light strider - Very squat and quite unlike anything in 40k to be honest.
UNA medium strider - Same chassis with an extension repositioned gun points and longer legs. nice models. this is what the Carnifex wants to hug. Walking SM Predator, no problem.
UNA heavy strider - This has Tau written all over it. Would work as a Tau vehicle on the Land Raider-Malcador scale. the biggest issue is whether to call it a warmachine or not.

Therians are necrons in part or whole.

Therian infantry including big heavy infantry - Cut them up or straight substitute them for necrons.
Therian light striders - look crap.
Therian medium and heavy striders - fill in the gaps in the Necron army list by providing light and medium tanks. You could at a stretch call the smaller ones heavy destroyers, otherwise design your own for Apocalypse.

Karmans are the hardest to shoehole as gorillas in power armour do not fit the 40k setting. they could be an allied race fro the Tau, and counts as as appropriate. I have seen individual models converted into ork characters but there is little for a whole army to convert into.

Karman light and medium skimmers - the exception, they would make excellent Piranhas and Tetras with a little work.

Cogs look like Tau on steroids, or chaos Tau. the infantry do not fit anywhere.

Cog light striders - An exception they could be a stright lift for Tau battlesuits.
Cog heavy striders (they have no medium) - another exception and possibly the most tempting, rearm them and use them as mecha variants of Hammerheads. i have some plans to do this.

Cool, thanks Orlanth.

I always figured the Therians would make good Necrons.

Are any of them metal, or are they all pre-paint plastic?

They're all pre-paint plastic, although there is a resin Therian character out there.

Transparent armored windows in use today are made of sapphire crystal or other transparent ceramic. I think M1 viewports are sapphire ~6" thick.

I'm eagerly waiting for someone to post better photographs (no disrespect to the Hopeless Gamer), but I quite certainly like what I can see here.

The zombies do look Mechanicum-esque, and can probably find a place in several different game systems in addition to AT-43. Incursion comes to mind, although I myself am not overly familiar with those rules.

The vehicles have a nice, grittier sci-fi appearance, which brings to mind the tank from Aliens. I will have to take a hacksaw to that massive cannon on the top of Type *** though, and either shorten or entirely replace the barrel.

@ LunaHound: Could you tell me whether you play with the AT-43 rules or is it that you really like the miniatures from a painting and modelling perspective? I'm just curious. You have some lovely things in your gallery by the way. Kudos.

The Therians also make for interesting Ad-Mech cyberdudes and warmachines.
Swap out the weapons and replace the Therian masks with zombie heads, and the bipedal Assault Goliaths make great combat servitors.

I think it's funny that there have been more posts about taking these models and converting them for 40K than using them for the game system for which they are intended. Then again, it has been suggested that the reason the AT-43 bunkers and container accessory sets are gone is because 40K players bought them up to convert into 40K terrain.

I have a friend who bought $200 worth of Therians during the firesale, hated the game, and now they're all Necron-conversion fodder.

Wouldn't it mean, however, that any models using AT-43 pieces wouldn't be legal in any GW tournament?

I think I found my new Chimeras, although the APCs might be a touch too modern for the IG.

M.

Mick A wrote:ShumaGorath- I take it you don't like any of the Apocalypse big units then? IG tanks to big and heavy to be able to actually move (look what happened with the German Maus) and the big walkers human and alien.

The MGS-type gun isn't any worse than the current GW Leman Russ or Tau X-Head designs, with their oversized guns. Presumably, this is just toy exaggeration so the part doesn't break during play.

Though I agree with Shuma that it looks kinda stupid...
____

Orkeosaurus wrote: Not getting into it's theoretical workability, it just looks too big for it's turret. And it looks like if it fired forward the tank would tip over backwards.

The MGS doesn't roll, so neither should this. Plus, there are low recoil guns even larger than what the MGS carries.

But none of it's real...

And it looks good.

Cairnius wrote:Wouldn't it mean, however, that any models using AT-43 pieces wouldn't be legal in any GW tournament?

Yeah, but most games aren't played in a tournament setting.

Karmans could sit in for Ogryns in an IG army.

Most 40K tournaments aren't run in GW stores regardless. I'm free to do whatsa I wantsta.

Alpharius wrote:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:The company you see in the pcture costs $70. That´s the ONI Army box.

That is a good deal!

And, as H.B.M.C. noted, this will make excellent AdMech fodder.

Since, you know, GW stubbornly refuses to make some themselves!

I'm seeing use for all those hoses and sawblade bionic arms, etc. on both orks and Arco/penitent engine/servitor type models...

Frazzled wrote:Most 40K tournaments aren't run in GW stores regardless. I'm free to do whatsa I wantsta.

As long as the base size is the same and the model is of comparable dimensions now we're back to TLoS, I entirely agree. GW and their 'if we didn't make it you can't use it' can wear it as a hat.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Cool, thanks Orlanth.

You are welcome. I suggest you look at At-43 in its own merits. Take a lomng lurk on the AT-43 board here on dakka and see for yourself.
Some of Rackhams rules make you wonder where Pete Haines went after he was sacked. Yes some of the stuff makes GW studio look like competents in comparison. they also dont update the rules properly, and ignore the cusotomer base. Despite all that the game isnt that bad, and has some advantages over what we normally play here.
Take a long look, it is not too late for you to get in at a reasonable price. Besides if the game doesnt meet with your satisfaction you will end up with a lot of material to use.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
I always figured the Therians would make good Necrons.

Some Therian miniatures are junk, others are really neat. Most golems are fairly squidgy plastic, and while that can be fixed it may or may not be worthwhile. Getting hold of a Tiamat just for a conversion piece is wrthwhile, and its still only $15 from the right place. while you are there check out the Baal Golgoth (?for Chaos?)and Assault Medusae. The medusae are wonderful sculpts and very invocative.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Are any of them metal, or are they all pre-paint plastic?

All plastic, the odd exception is not readily available. The prepaint quality is also much higher than expected. plastic quality varies by design, some items are hard plastic, others soft plastic. You can have a mix on the same kit.

Cairnius wrote:I think it's funny that there have been more posts about taking these models and converting them for 40K than using them for the game system for which they are intended. Then again, it has been suggested that the reason the AT-43 bunkers and container accessory sets are gone is because 40K players bought them up to convert into 40K terrain.

Allowing for where we are that is not suprising, or indicative.

Cairnius wrote:
I have a friend who bought $200 worth of Therians during the firesale, hated the game, and now they're all Necron-conversion fodder.

The only reason I have Therians is because I got most of them free with the Damocles sets I bought to get the majority of my terrain and UNA army.

Cairnius wrote:
Wouldn't it mean, however, that any models using AT-43 pieces wouldn't be legal in any GW tournament?

Depends, taking say the legs of a Cobra/Snake and using them for legs on your IG Sentinel would probably be fine. But you cant enter that into Golden Daemon as scratchbuild. Making a Cobra/Snake orky by adding glyphs to it and using it as a deff dread will not go down well.
All in all bitz from foreign minitures are more than acceptable. I have seen Zoids bits in 40K stuff in White Dwarf, maybe they think we dont notice.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote: Not getting into it's theoretical workability, it just looks too big for it's turret. And it looks like if it fired forward the tank would tip over backwards.

The MGS doesn't roll, so neither should this. Plus, there are low recoil guns even larger than what the MGS carries.

I know, but it looks like it'd be liable to roll. I'd say in a tabletop game, looking functional is more important than actually being a functional design.

Mechas probably make less actual sense than this tank does, but if the mechas look like something that should work (having parts in proportion to each other, looking like it could move around without tipping) that's good enough for me.

In other news, still no word on the unpainted plastic kits or more resin miniatures, huh?

Guess so...

His Master's Voice wrote:In other news, still no word on the unpainted plastic kits or more resin miniatures, huh?

Guess so...

I think that ship has sailed, unfortunately...

Hmm , multi quote replies here i go! ( forgive me if i quote wrong stuff lol)

Strahd wrote:
@ LunaHound: Could you tell me whether you play with the AT-43 rules or is it that you really like the miniatures from a painting and modelling perspective? I'm just curious. You have some lovely things in your gallery by the way. Kudos.

I love both, the game have many nice rules 40k doesnt have . im missing alot of core legal infantry units for example , but thats very easily taken care of by adding some Imperial Guards in.
but if i play with my cousin , he doesnt really care much about a proper list , we would just throw everything in like an Apoc game.

Cairnius wrote:I think it's funny that there have been more posts about taking these models and converting them for 40K than using them for the game system for which they are intended. Then again, it has been suggested that the reason the AT-43 bunkers and container accessory sets are gone is because 40K players bought them up to convert into 40K terrain.
Wouldn't it mean, however, that any models using AT-43 pieces wouldn't be legal in any GW tournament?

Well , i was sort of wondering when you'll show up in my AT-43 thread again. First of all , thank you for reminding us about GW tournament usage and if its legal to use AT-43 parts. ( though most of the tournament goers are not
newbies and certainly wouldnt forget ) but thank you never the less.

2nd , I know what you are trying to imply and i highlighted your sentence. But oh well , all i have to say is , what do you expect the reaction to be for a new game AND consider this is a WARHAMMER board? Need i say more?
Dont think so.

Frazzled wrote:Most 40K tournaments aren't run in GW stores regardless. I'm free to do whatsa I wantsta.

Thank you ^^v

CT GAMER wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Duncan_Idaho wrote:The company you see in the pcture costs $70. That´s the ONI Army box.

That is a good deal!

And, as H.B.M.C. noted, this will make excellent AdMech fodder.

Since, you know, GW stubbornly refuses to make some themselves!

I'm seeing use for all those hoses and sawblade bionic arms, etc. on both orks and Arco/penitent engine/servitor type models...

Yep! i know its a good deal , and i know they are perfect for conversion for SO MANY different armies.
Thats why i was so excited to post the news!

His Master's Voice wrote:In other news, still no word on the unpainted plastic kits or more resin miniatures, huh?Guess so...

Its perfectly ok to paint directly over them . Consider the pre paint as free primer and bonus under coat . ( i have one done recently in my gallery )

Kilkrazy wrote:The cylinder on the gun is a device found on nearly all modern tank guns. It creates a pressure inside the barrel to cause the propellant fumes to exhaust through the muzzle rather than back into the turret.

All 40K guns are too large and all 40K vehicles are too small for their crews. It's part of the heroic look and prevents vehicles from being longer than the range of small arms.

Armoured windscreens are seen on various light armoured vehicles, usually recon type vehicles which aren't expected to stand in the front line of battle.

Ooh thank you for clearing the weapon and the window issue up! yes they are recon class vehicles .

Frazzled wrote:Most 40K tournaments aren't run in GW stores regardless. I'm free to do whatsa I wantsta.

Didn't GW cancel their US tournaments this year?

Ouch! Well, it just goes to show that apparently we're not all as funny as we think.

Anyway...

@ Platuan4th
1) Could you tell me what colour the lower halves of the AVFs are? Yellow?
2) Do you know how soon the ONI Unit Boxes will follow the Army Box?
3) I do not play Confrontation, but are the Ram Gargoyles you mentioned the same as the Wamphyri seen months ago? I definitely have a use for those.

Alpharius
Post 2009/08/14 02:18:26 Subject: ONI Mercenary Force (new upcomming faction) Excellent 6 wheeled APC and mech zombies!

Duncan_Idaho wrote:The company you see in the pcture costs $70. That´s the ONI Army box.



That is a good deal!

And, as H.B.M.C. noted, this will make excellent AdMech fodder.

Since, you know, GW stubbornly refuses to make some themselves!

For a long time now I have felt that GW has missed out on an opportunity with this. From a personal standpoint I have long since grown tired of GW's "let's stick a skull on everything" (yes I know it's the entire point of grimdark), but at the same time I really like the unnatural and uncomfortable fusion of meat and metal. At risk of going off topic, this is why the Horus Heresy era is more interesting to me: in my imagination its a bit more sci-fi and less fantasy than 40K. I have long wanted nasty, heavily armed cyborgs and these fulfil the need. I play several games including 40K (since RT) and AT-43 and have come to appreciate multi-purpose miniatures.

I do not play tournaments and have long since passed the point where a company tells me what I should or should not do, so I absolutely agree with MeanGreen Stompa.

All this said and getting back on topic, even with some gaping holes in the rules and all, I do like the AT-43 rules and am impatiently waiting for the ONI stats to arrive.

Wow, great looking models Thanks for posting this!

ShumaGorath wrote: Even then I can't understand the fascination with windshields on tanks in all these games. Thats not how tanks work. Thats not how they ever worked. Thats not how they will ever work.

Besides the vehicles Killkrazy mentioned, don't forget the rather well-regarded South African Ratel IFV:



Which actually looks the most like the AT-43 vehicles IMO. Same number of wheels, VERY similar front windows.....

Also keep in mind these vehicles aren't main battle tanks, which are fully expected to be eating massive ordnance from the front. IFVs are more worried about underbody blasts from mines & IEDs (which shouldn't affect the windows on the top), and small arms (bulletproof glass FTW). If it took a hit from a serious AT weapon it probably wouldn't matter if there was a small window in the front or not, as the rest of the armor is likely too thin to make a difference against such weapons anyway.

Also keep in mind these vehicles aren't main battle tanks, which are fully expected to be eating massive ordnance from the front. IFVs are more worried about underbody blasts from mines & IEDs (which shouldn't affect the windows on the top), and small arms (bulletproof glass FTW). If it took a hit from a serious AT weapon it probably wouldn't matter if there was a small window in the front or not, as the rest of the armor is likely too thin to make a difference against such weapons anyway.

I don't think a tank with a canon as big as the one pictured on page one is planning to support infantry any time soon. You use guns like that to bombard beaches from the sea. It has the turret of a large main battle tank (It's big for one of those as well really), and the design of a light IFV.




Windshields on light infantry support and transport vehicles make sense. They make some sense on the other vehicle with it's weird little microwave gun which is much better proportioned.



It does look very similar to the stryker MGS, but thats a mobile artillery system with no windows.



The design looks like it would be great as a chimera conversion though. Place the forewad looking heavy bolter in the windshield position and tear off the turrets and you have a great though probably large conversion on your hand. After the required aquilla/skulls-ification though.

The Stryker Support Platform was what I thought of imediately as well. The MGS does have an auxillary AT role but it is primarilly intended for close artillery support of the Styker Brigade Combat Team.

I like them both myself, very refreshing change from the GW vehicles.

Wow the last pic, i hope the front windows are closed.

Someone is going to be missing hair / eyebrow /eyelash + deaf and blind.

@Luna:

That is why MARS / MLRS has blast covers for windshield when firing...

ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't think a tank with a canon as big as the one pictured on page one is planning to support infantry any time soon. You use guns like that to bombard beaches from the sea. It has the turret of a large main battle tank (It's big for one of those as well really), and the design of a light IFV.

Actually infantry support *is* what most such vehicles are great for. High-calibre low-velocity cannons are good at reducing hard targets such as bunkers and heavy buildings. Combined with their use as direct (rather than indirect) fire systems (don't need as much stabilization and fire control gear) and they are basically the lightest, cheapest way to put a BIG shell full of explosives at a squad leader's fingertips. Also, low-velocity guns tend to be crap vs tank armor: APFSDS rounds depend almost entirely on the speed and density of the projectile.

I've read through "design your own battalion/brigade" discussions on military forums where members advocated the introduction of 155mm (which has something like 3x as much HE as the 105mm on a Stryker MGS) short-barreled, direct-fire guns, mounted in a turret in the front of a large wheeled vehicle, with room for dismounts in the back. This would give the carried infantry squad organic fire support capable of flattening pretty much any hard point, obstacle, or sniper nest it encounters in an urban environment. Other than maybe having 2 more wheels and the turret farther forward, it would look pretty similar to the AT-43 vehicle.

Now for the most agitating part....

the long wait -_-