I'm also confused about the visual aids comment? They should be pretty clear with the descriptions on how they work, the Detachment one especially is practically just "the exact same visual language as official 40k stuff, but Eldar themed instead of Imperium themed" and the Warhost one is literally just a radial flowchart. But, you know, fancy.
Speaking as someone who doesn't consume 40k material, the graphics are not intuitive. They look like warped Order of Battle charts, but are in fact saying completely different things.

The Detachment graphic fails to communicate that it's about what units are allowed in a detachment, not about who reports to who. It's understandable with that context, but without that, the first reading is that everyone reports to their neighbors and only the Troops and Elites report directly to HQ, and it's not clear what the inner ring of six nodes are supposed to be--the text explains that those are additional units taken in 'Column A or Column B' fashion, but without that, who knows.

The Warhost graphic is better, in that we can grasp that command is flowing from the center out, but I know my first reading was that a Warhost is composed of a HQ Detachment and three Heavy Detachments, three Standard Detachments reporting to their neighboring Heavies, each Standard having two lights that also report to light detachments in neighboring Standard detachments, and also there's three Special Detachments 'surrounding' HQ but not being part of it and only talking to eachother. Which is obviously nonsensical, but the correct reading is in no way implied by the graphic and has to be explained separately.

In short, the visual aides as provided are not helpful and serve mostly to confuse the issue.

I mean, the reason why I decided to copy that is because it is highly readable and intuitive - there are several other properties that use similar visual language for that very reason. Heck, the reason why they ended up as hexagons was because I sketched out a more standard flat VVVVV type arrangement but it took up a lot of space and was hard to read because of how some of the connection lines had to either cross or loop all the way around the entire graphic.
I'd be interested to know what other properties use this language, because it's about as clear as mud to me.
 
This is why those blessings started to fade before the Fall, which was one of the big red flags for the Craftworlds; as faith waned, so to did the strength of the Pantheon---and with it, their blessings.
Okay now I'm confused. Shrines of Khaine for Elite training was what started this discussion, with people asking if we could do Shrines of Asuryan or Kurnous instead because all my homies hate Khaine, to which you said those would summon Slaanesh and Nurgle to fuck us up. This led me to ask about if other Shrines would be possible without getting fucked, and then someone asking about the utility of making Shrines to eaten gods.

To be clear, my question was: Would building Shrines of Hoec or Lileath provide any benefit comparable to Shrines of Khaine in their respective fields?

Second, follow up question, would maintaining active worship of Isha channeled through the Spirit Stone cache we have (since we're not using them as soul anchors like the Asuryani) be helpful to her at all?
 
Alright, we're getting fairly close to Go Time, the impression I got is "We can't refit yet, but we can raise new units from whole cloth out of equipment we produce this turn, and we should definitely be considering producing enough wargear that we can do some hard refitting next turn", right?

@Mechanis, quick question, do we have a list of our Rationalized units on the Front Page yet? I'm looking at it, but all the lists still just give our old turn 1 shitty gear groups and none of the new stuff.
We have new squads and vehicles, but no detatchment to raise those squads into. That's what we can design this turn, and then raise those detatchments next turn I think? I'm favoring one 'ranged combat' detachment, and one 'melee' one.
 
Alright, we're getting fairly close to Go Time, the impression I got is "We can't refit yet, but we can raise new units from whole cloth out of equipment we produce this turn, and we should definitely be considering producing enough wargear that we can do some hard refitting next turn", right?

@Mechanis, quick question, do we have a list of our Rationalized units on the Front Page yet? I'm looking at it, but all the lists still just give our old turn 1 shitty gear groups and none of the new stuff.
Rather than trying to raise new units whole cloth this turn that will lack any modern heavy vehicles or modernized HQ squads this turn we should probably spend our WAP disbanding some of the unused detachments and standing up a semi-decent Warhost with the rest (we can't be sure the Meros and Freeboota hunters will be available against Biel-Tan iirc).

The Steward AP that would go to creating a new detachment can go towards creating a tank out of all the Needlestorms we're going to have and round out things with another role.

We don't have to make a new detachment until we're largely done fixing the Militia and HG detachments already fielded in Warhosts. They'll be in slightly different squad sizes than we made in the Rationalization but nothing critical. If we give it a few more turns until we design new detachments we'll be able to field formations with a lot less gaps in their capability.
 
Last edited:
Rather than trying to raise new units whole cloth this turn that will lack any modern heavy vehicles or modernized HQ squads this turn we should probably spend our WAP disbanding some of the unused detachments and standing up a semi-decent Warhost with the rest (we can't be sure the Meros and Freeboota hunters will be available against Biel-Tan iirc).

The Steward AP that would go to creating can go towards creating a tank out of all the Needlestorms we're going to have and maybe round out things with another role.

We don't have to make a new detachment until we're largely done fixing the Militia and HG detachments already fielded in Warhosts. They'll be in slightly different squad sizes than we made in the Rationalization but nothing critical

Understood, I'll make the final revisions to my Preliminary Plan.

Was there anything else that you wanted me to adjust in my original draft? I didn't quite catch the discussion while I was sleeping and today was a bit hectic.
 
Rather than trying to raise new units whole cloth this turn that will lack any modern heavy vehicles or modernized HQ squads this turn we should probably spend our WAP disbanding some of the unused detachments and standing up a semi-decent Warhost with the rest (we can't be sure the Meros and Freeboota hunters will be available against Biel-Tan iirc).

The Steward AP that would go to creating a new detachment can go towards creating a tank out of all the Needlestorms we're going to have and round out things with another role.

We don't have to make a new detachment until we're largely done fixing the Militia and HG detachments already fielded in Warhosts. They'll be in slightly different squad sizes than we made in the Rationalization but nothing critical. If we give it a few more turns until we design new detachments we'll be able to field formations with a lot less gaps in their capability.
I'm unsure if *disbanding* units for their equipment and sending their staff back to civilian life will be the optimal choice but it's pretty much the only one we have other than 'build more units of the initial pattern.'
 
Understood, I'll make the final revisions to my Preliminary Plan.

Was there anything else that you wanted me to adjust in my original draft? I didn't quite catch the discussion while I was sleeping and today was a bit hectic.
From what I understand we can take 3 features for plasma weaponry but compromises don't count toward that limit. The -Safety compromise doesn't make them any less reliable, they just produce too much waste heat for unpowered infantry to fire them. Given our lightest infantry wears SPA that isn't a huge issue. I bring this up because the sooner we have a viable plasma weapon the more use it's going to see in the army reforms and new ship designs. I'd like to see us squeeze in melta weaponry if we can afford it as it would be a nice secondary weapon for the Ketch replacement to keep anything trying to close in on the Heavy Starlance honest.

Other than that, Mechanis has mentioned that for developing new weaponry you have to pay it all at once. I don't know if Haywire is getting grandfathered in because of the misunderstanding last turn, but you should probably verify that if you haven't. I haven't been able to keep up with the entire thread either.
 
From what I understand we can take 3 features for plasma weaponry but compromises don't count toward that limit. The -Safety compromise doesn't make them any less reliable, they just produce too much waste heat for unpowered infantry to fire them. Given our lightest infantry wears SPA that isn't a huge issue. I bring this up because the sooner we have a viable plasma weapon the more use it's going to see in the army reforms and new ship designs. I'd like to see us squeeze in melta weaponry if we can afford it as it would be a nice secondary weapon for the Ketch replacement to keep anything trying to close in on the Heavy Starlance honest.

Other than that, Mechanis has mentioned that for developing new weaponry you have to pay it all at once. I don't know if Haywire is getting grandfathered in because of the misunderstanding last turn, but you should probably verify that if you haven't. I haven't been able to keep up with the entire thread either.

Huh, alright, @Mechanis , what's the take on Haywire then? Was that previous 3 AP just wasted?
 
I'm unsure if *disbanding* units for their equipment and sending their staff back to civilian life will be the optimal choice but it's pretty much the only one we have other than 'build more units of the initial pattern.'
We had emergency draftees levied for a time of emergency and we're sending them home as we professionalize and consolidate. It doesn't seem that unrealistic.

I'm not saying we should keep doing it in the long term but it's a great way of getting the ball rolling on the refits so that we have enough vehicles and the like to mechanize and upgrade more of the troops that are liable to see action than those reservists. We have nearly 30 reserve detachments, I'd probably settle for just disbanding 10 to get the ball rolling and gradually mobilizing/upgrading the rest.
 
Last edited:
While I still think we should scry for the Blackstone fortresses putting that aside we ought to be more specific with the artifacts scrying action.
My friend, they should be fine for a few more centuries, and I don't know about you, but I would want to be able to move before going after them.
I think that using a divination to find where Freebootas are based, is more prudent. And maybe find a few more craftworlds to help.
 
Alright, we're getting fairly close to Go Time, the impression I got is "We can't refit yet, but we can raise new units from whole cloth out of equipment we produce this turn, and we should definitely be considering producing enough wargear that we can do some hard refitting next turn", right?

@Mechanis, quick question, do we have a list of our Rationalized units on the Front Page yet? I'm looking at it, but all the lists still just give our old turn 1 shitty gear groups and none of the new stuff.
Oh for fuck's sake. One moment.

Speaking as someone who doesn't consume 40k material, the graphics are not intuitive. They look like warped Order of Battle charts, but are in fact saying completely different things.

The Detachment graphic fails to communicate that it's about what units are allowed in a detachment, not about who reports to who. It's understandable with that context, but without that, the first reading is that everyone reports to their neighbors and only the Troops and Elites report directly to HQ, and it's not clear what the inner ring of six nodes are supposed to be--the text explains that those are additional units taken in 'Column A or Column B' fashion, but without that, who knows.

The Warhost graphic is better, in that we can grasp that command is flowing from the center out, but I know my first reading was that a Warhost is composed of a HQ Detachment and three Heavy Detachments, three Standard Detachments reporting to their neighboring Heavies, each Standard having two lights that also report to light detachments in neighboring Standard detachments, and also there's three Special Detachments 'surrounding' HQ but not being part of it and only talking to eachother. Which is obviously nonsensical, but the correct reading is in no way implied by the graphic and has to be explained separately.

In short, the visual aides as provided are not helpful and serve mostly to confuse the issue.


I'd be interested to know what other properties use this language, because it's about as clear as mud to me.
Ah I see. You skipped right to the visual aids, which are intended to supplement the text, rather than reading the rules text first, going "wait I'm confused and having trouble visualizing" and then going "oh, I get it now" with the help of the graphics.
Which. Yeah, that would be confusing, because they're not replacements for the rules text, they're supplements for it. (If this was a video game or a tabletop rulebook, you would probably have the graphics on one page/side and the text next to or right under them, because they're really not meant for stand-alone use without reading the text first.)

Honestly it seems like most of your issue is coming from skimming or just not reading the information posts which... Don't do that? I put a lot of both fluff and mechanical information in those. Especially fluff, if you skip the info posts you're going to miss like 60-70% of the fluff information, which does actually matter as this is a story, not a tabletop wargame.
 
Mechanis are we able to suggest things to research or you have tech trees pre-planed? I feel this was asked but I can't find it.
 
Last edited:
I don't do tabletop but yeah you really need to read the text to understand the graphics. I read the graphics on detachment just now and it didn't take me more than a minute or two to wrap my head around how the organization structure worked.
 
Note that if you compromise on safety the weapons will still be reliable, simply unusable by those in unpowered armor due to heat issues.

a question here, could we push the effects of comprising safety even farther? to the point where being near the operator if your not in power armor is dangerous? We're intending to make wide scale use of power armor, so a gun that cooks everything without power armor nearby would be super useful.
 
I don't actually think so? I think the flavor of grav-hammer which smashes stuff by increasing its own weight would be Implosion, since those fields increase the weight of stuff. However a hammer that uses the tech behind Impactor grav weapons could also work, releasing a wave on impact to send the target flying, or well, crushing them into the ground. I would make an argument that we could also make a hammer variant that uses sheer, projecting a long focused spike of gravitational sheer from the head of the hammer in order to punch through a target, like a warpick.
@Alectai Did you catch this?
I'd also like to note that Impactor grav weapons would just be good for melee troops in general since it would let them just yeet foes they don't want to deal with right now away. Also it might let us make a man-cannon deployment method.
 
[ ] Preliminary Plan: Banging Out The Dents
-[][Steward] Design a Detachment (2 AP)
-[][Steward] Form and Function to Feed a World (3 AP)
-[][Steward] Design a Frigate (4 AP)
-[][Steward] Delve the Vaults (1 AP)
-[][Bonesinger] Assess the damage to Vau-Vulkesh's engines (4 AP)
-[][Bonesinger] Continue ship repair (1 AP)
-[][Bonesinger] Begin refitting the Dragonships of Quilan (1 AP)
--[][Bonesinger] Also offer Grav-shields (+1 AP)
-[ ][Bonesinger] Refit an Escort (3 AP)
--[][Bonesinger] 9x Damaged Lance Cutters to Nettle-class Escort Cutters
-[][Bonesinger] Forge Actions
--[][Bonesinger] 2x Wargear Production (10,000 EP, details TBD)
-[][Seer] Present: Where are the Freebootas threatening Val-Terrine based
-[][Seer] Future: What will be the strength of the next wave threatening Meros
-[][Seer] The Flaw, The Curse, The Claim (5 AP)
-[][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Grav-weapons (2 AP)
--[][Seeker] Gravetic-Oscillator Weapons (+2 AP)
--[][Seeker] Gravetic-Implosion Weapons (+2 AP)
-[][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Plasma Blasters
--[][Seeker] Power (+1 AP, +.5 turns)
--[][Seeker] Range (+1 AP, +.5 Turns)
--[][Seeker] Lower Cost (+3 AP, +2 Turns)
--[][Seeker] Compromise: Safety (-2 AP, -2 Turns)
-[][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Conversion Fields (2 AP/turn, 3 turns)
--[][Seeker] Regeneration
-[][Warrior] Muster a Fleet
--[][Val-Terrine] 1x Combat Brig, 4x Battle Carracks, 8x Assault Ketches, 12x Lance Cutters
--[][Val-Terrine] Deploy Hearthguard Iron Fist and 1st Heavy Militia
-[][Warrior] Disband Detachment (4 AP)
--[][Warrior] Militia Line Detachment x4


Updated draft, we're disbanding 4 Line Detachments and committing 10,000 EP towards equipment building this turn, putting us in a position to modernize a hell of a lot of units. I do feel like bulking out our fleet right now takes priority however, so I'm unwilling to remove those points from refits, as it's a cheap way to get a damaged ship and make it useful to us again. Long term benefits are great, but we're in a crisis now, and we need every AP we can get on damage control.

Ships are intended to overkill the menace there if we can by sending more than we think we need, and hopefully cleaning it up quickly, especially with divination support. We'll be in a prime position to update a lot of units next turn and hopefully get a partially rationalized Warhost rolled out in time.

I've also taken the advice to do the Safety Compromise so we can cut our Plasma Blaster time down to 1 turn and 3 AP and thus they run hot--but not so hot our Void Guard can't use them, and with the expense reduced, we should be able to field quite a few of them. I use the AP generated there to buy another Gravity Weapon branch and get Implosion weapons. I'll get my damn grav-mauls see that I don't!

Any issues here @Karugus ?
 
Last edited:
nooooo. not the safety. I mean I understand that we would only give them to ilthamar folks, but still

Wasn't that confirmed to be viable for Void Guard too? Semi-Powered is still Powered to a degree.

The point is, this gives us a very nasty explody ball shooter that we can spam in large numbers. Plasma Rockets anyone?
 
Mechanis are we able to suggest things to research or you have tech trees pre-planed?
Yes.

As mentioned earlier, when someone brought up some tech they'd come up with, You are free to post ideas, with the caviet that there is no guarantee said ideas will actually be used or not fiddled with to better match the story I intend to tell.
If you want to perhaps anticipate some of the sorts of things that you might be able to make in the future, a walk through some of the "high tech" factions in the Lexicaium and or 40k wiki will likely be helpful. Especially since anything that goes "Mysterious Origin" is 90% likely to be leftover War in Heaven tech from one or another participants.

a question here, could we push the effects of comprising safety even farther? to the point where being near the operator if your not in power armor is dangerous? We're intending to make wide scale use of power armor, so a gun that cooks everything without power armor nearby would be super useful.
The safety compromise is as low as it can be cut down without endangering the operator (well, as long as he or she isn't an idiot and refrains from trying to pick it up barehanded when it's at "you're gonna leave your palms behind when you let go" temperatures), any further and you start having problems like "containment loss" and "parts of the gun melted" which is, as they say, No Bueno.

And yes, Void Guard suits would be able to handle a safety cut plasma weapon fine.
 
Yes.

As mentioned earlier, when someone brought up some tech they'd come up with, You are free to post ideas, with the caviet that there is no guarantee said ideas will actually be used or not fiddled with to better match the story I intend to tell.
Right I asked because I wasn't sure due to me asking about min mecha sized armor and I tried to ask if it was valid (in that we can do it or need to research it) and didn't get a response.
 
[X] Plan: Rounding Out The Rest
-[X] [Steward] Design Additional Vehicle(s) (1 AP)
-[X] [Steward] Design a Frigate (4 AP)
-[X] [Steward] Form and Function to Feed a World (3 AP)
-[X] [Steward] Delve the Vaults (2 AP)
-[X] [Bonesinger] Assess the damage to Vau-Vulkesh's engines (4 AP)
-[X] [Bonesinger] Armor Foundry (Ithilmar Assault Suit) (2 AP)
-[X] [Bonesinger] Continue ship repair (1 AP)
-[X] [Bonesinger] Begin refitting the Dragonships of Quilan (1 AP)
--[X] [Bonesinger] Also offer Grav-shields (+1 AP)
-[X] [Bonesinger] Develop Melta Weapons (1 AP)
-[X] [Bonesinger] Forge of Vaul: Produce Wargear (5000 EP max) x2
-[X] [Seer] Scry the Future (1 AP)
--[X] [Seer] "What will be the strength of the next wave threatening Meros?"
-[X] [Seer] Scry the Present (1 AP)
--[X] [Seer] "Where are the most powerful weapons in our vaults?"
-[X] [Seer] The Flaw, The Curse, The Claim (5 AP)
-[X] [Seeker] Reverse-engineer Grav-weapons (6 AP)
--[X] [Seeker] Gravetic Sheer Weapons
--[X] [Seeker] Torsion Weapons
-[X] [Seeker] Reverse-engineer Plasma Blasters (4 AP)
--[X] [Seeker] Power (+1 AP, +.5 turns)
--[X] [Seeker] Fire Rate (+2 AP, +1 turn)
--[X] [Seeker] Lower Cost (+3 AP, +0.5 tuns)
--[X] [Seeker] Safety (-2 AP, -2 turns)
-[X] [Seeker] Reverse-engineer Conversion Fields (2 AP/turn, 3 turns)
--[X] [Seeker] Regeneration
-[X] [Warrior] Muster a Fleet (1 AP)
--[X] [Warrior] 3 Combat Brig, 12 Battle Carrack, 15 Assault Ketch, 10 Battle Caravel, 14 Lance Cutter
--[X] [Warrior] Send forth a Warhost (Hearthguard Iron Fist, 1st Heavy Militia)
-[X] [Warrior] Disband Detachment (4 AP)
--[X] [Warrior] Militia Line Detachment x4

Well, it's finally done. Vote for this if you want an armor foundry, different grav-weapons, and plasma machine-guns.
 
The safety compromise is as low as it can be cut down without endangering the operator (well, as long as he or she isn't an idiot and refrains from trying to pick it up barehanded when it's at "you're gonna leave your palms behind when you let go" temperatures), any further and you start having problems like "containment loss" and "parts of the gun melted" which is, as they say, No Bueno.

And yes, Void Guard suits would be able to handle a safety cut plasma weapon fine.

So if we want a version of the plasma gun that cooks exposed infantry that dares approach the user, that would be it's own research project?
 
-[][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Conversion Fields (2 AP/turn, 3 turns)
--[][Seeker] Regeneration
Personally, I would make the argument that instead of Regen we should go for size. Because if we can get this small enough to function as gear we can easily bolt it onto existing Ithilmar suits for even more insane durability, and a smaller Conversion field can be stuffed onto more things without compromising too much. However I do see the argument for Regeneration, especially considering the massively decreased number of attacks a conversion field would have to deal with over the course of a battle when considering on larger ships we'll be deploying it with both Holofields and Grav Shields.
 
Personally, I would make the argument that instead of Regen we should go for size. Because if we can get this small enough to function as gear we can easily bolt it onto existing Ithilmar suits for even more insane durability, and a smaller Conversion field can be stuffed onto more things without compromising too much. However I do see the argument for Regeneration, especially considering the massively decreased number of attacks a conversion field would have to deal with over the course of a battle when considering on larger ships we'll be deploying it with both Holofields and Grav Shields.

Ithilmar is already virtually invincible, further protection is redundant.

Regeneration is important because we can potentially leverage that into a cheaper Active Defense for future ships. Sure, Grav-Shields and Holofields are a hell of a wombo-combo, but a single Conversion Shield is probably cheaper on the Systems slots, which opens up new possibilities.

EDIT: Oh yeah, it's Go Time

[X] Plan: Banging Out The Dents
-[X][Steward] Design Additional Vehicles (3 AP)
-[X][Steward] Form and Function to Feed a World (3 AP)
-[X][Steward] Design a Frigate (4 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Assess the damage to Vau-Vulkesh's engines (4 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Continue ship repair (1 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Begin refitting the Dragonships of Quilan (1 AP)
--[X][Bonesinger] Also offer Grav-shields (+1 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Refit an Escort (3 AP)
--[X][Bonesinger] 9x Damaged Lance Cutters to Nettle-class Escort Cutters
-[X][Bonesinger] Forge Actions
--[X][Bonesinger] 2x Wargear Production (10,000 EP, details TBD)
-[X][Seer] Present: Where are the Freebootas threatening Val-Terrine based
-[X][Seer] Future: What will be the strength of the next wave threatening Meros
-[X][Seer] The Flaw, The Curse, The Claim (5 AP)
-[X][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Grav-weapons
--[X][Seeker] Gravetic Sheer Weapons (+2 AP)
--[X][Seeker] Gravetic-Oscillator Weapons (+2 AP)
--[X][Seeker] Gravetic-Implosion Weapons (+2 AP)
-[X][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Plasma Blasters
--[X][Seeker] Power (+1 AP, +.5 turns)
--[X][Seeker] Range (+1 AP, +.5 Turns)
--[X][Seeker] Lower Cost (+3 AP, +2 Turns)
--[X][Seeker] Compromise: Safety (-2 AP, -2 Turns)
-[X][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Conversion Fields (2 AP/turn, 3 turns)
--[X][Seeker] Regeneration
-[X][Warrior] Muster a Fleet
--[X][Val-Terrine] 1x Combat Brig, 4x Battle Carracks, 8x Assault Ketches, 12x Lance Cutters
--[X][Val-Terrine] Deploy Hearthguard Iron Fist and 1st Heavy Militia
-[X][Warrior] Raise Warhost (1 AP)
--[X][Warrior] 4x Battlecasting Support Detachments, 2x Hearthguard Skirmish Detachment, 2x Militia Line Detachments
 
Last edited:
Back
Top