- Location
- Germany
Ah yes, the type of weapon when used on spaceships being a viable CIWB weapon and not the starblade variant.
Sure not useful for Anti-Titan work, when it is expected to actually damage stuff a good bit larger than a titan.
A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)
Ah yes, the type of weapon when used on spaceships being a viable CIWB weapon and not the starblade variant.
Sure not useful for Anti-Titan work, when it is expected to actually damage stuff a good bit larger than a titan.
- Location
- Utrecht
Well yeah, they're not our best anti titan weapon.
They're our second best one.
But the increased RoF makes them better than the Starblade against everything else.
I do not think this argument is founded in reality. One hit from SB is a lot a better than one hit from SLs, but SLs will make 10 shots in time it takes SB to make one. What's better against a particular target depends on type of defenses (SLs are better against holo-fields and grav-shields, SB against armor and conversion fields), target beefiness (SBs are better against beefier targets) and I'd bet takes a combination of factors to make a single starblade better than a pair of superheavy starlances.
- Location
- Germany
Small update to my vote so we have less risk of having 2 super heavy tanks as part of the winning vote:
[X] Anvil of Sundering (Starlance Salvage edition)
-[X] Heavy Grav-Tank
-[X] Trade in for mounts: -2 Vehicle, -1 Heavy, -2 Ranged +1 Superheavy (-19 Slots)
-[X] Defenses: 1x Holo-Field, 3x Grav Shields (108 EP)
-[X] Weapons: 2x SH Starlance, 1x H. Needler (710 EP, 90 Starcrystal)
[x] Cloudburst Mortar Assault Skimmer
-[X] Skimmer Chassis
-[X] Install 1x extra Heavy mount (3 SS)
-[X] 2xScreamer Grenade Launcher (8 EP) in a back turret, twin-linked, operated by the same gunner
-[X] 2xSpike Rifle(10 EP), twin-linked, driver-operated
-[X] Holo-field (2SS, 18EP)
I think fits better with the other two parts I am already voting for, so it gets my vote.
[X] Hailstorm Grav-Tank (402 EP, 5 Psy-Scope)
-[X] Light Grav Vehicle (154 EP)
-[X] Trade in for mounts: +1 Vehicle, -1 Heavy, -4
-[X] Defenses: 1x Holo-Field, 2x Grav Shields (78 EP)
-[X] Weapons: 1 Fateshredder Cannon + 1 Fatesever Cannon (in the turret), 1 Starcarver (driver operated) (170 EP, 5 Psy-scopes, 8 SC)
[X] Anvil of Sundering (Starlance Salvage edition)
-[X] Heavy Grav-Tank
-[X] Trade in for mounts: -2 Vehicle, -1 Heavy, -2 Ranged +1 Superheavy (-19 Slots)
-[X] Defenses: 1x Holo-Field, 3x Grav Shields (108 EP)
-[X] Weapons: 2x SH Starlance, 1x H. Needler (710 EP, 90 Starcrystal)
[x] Cloudburst Mortar Assault Skimmer
-[X] Skimmer Chassis
-[X] Install 1x extra Heavy mount (3 SS)
-[X] 2xScreamer Grenade Launcher (8 EP) in a back turret, twin-linked, operated by the same gunner
-[X] 2xSpike Rifle(10 EP), twin-linked, driver-operated
-[X] Holo-field (2SS, 18EP)
I think fits better with the other two parts I am already voting for, so it gets my vote.
[X] Hailstorm Grav-Tank (402 EP, 5 Psy-Scope)
-[X] Light Grav Vehicle (154 EP)
-[X] Trade in for mounts: +1 Vehicle, -1 Heavy, -4
-[X] Defenses: 1x Holo-Field, 2x Grav Shields (78 EP)
-[X] Weapons: 1 Fateshredder Cannon + 1 Fatesever Cannon (in the turret), 1 Starcarver (driver operated) (170 EP, 5 Psy-scopes, 8 SC)
Last edited:
Starlances are inadequate for anti-titan work because the Starblade descript outright says that it isn't. If they were than there wouldn't be any point to having Starblades.
The problem is that your Twin SL tank will be neglecting the one role that none of our other vehicles can fulfil (killing Titans) just for the ability to do stuff our existing vehicles can already do.
We don't need this tank to be any army-killer since we already have tanks with regular Starlances that can shred anything smaller than a superheavy.
While the Dual SL's would be better than a single SB against Holo-fields and Grav-Shields they are still Lance type weaponry so would still be at a significant disadvantage.
A standard Lance battery contains two lances and we concluded that the single heavy lance battery a Ketch would have would be insufficient against Holo-Field equipped ships which was why we kept the Fatetwister battery.
Since the Suncleave has 2 Fatesever cannons it would in fact be better than a Dual SL tank since it will consistently hit Holo-Field equipped vehicles and since they are smaller weapons than the SH Starlances they should also have superior RoF in comparison (similar argument you made for SLs) while their weakpoint seeking capabilities should ensure that they are able to regularly inflict damage.
Meanwhile Vs Grav-Shields the Suncleave has several smaller weapons which should allow it a greater volume of fire compared to a Dual SL tank and thus be the superior option vs Grav-Shields since they are explicitly weak against massed fire.
Last edited:
It seems we're going in circles but I really don't buy this. Going by what we know about starlances in general, SH starlance is likely more powerful than a volcano cannon but with a RoF of a turbo-laser. It's a great anti-titan weapon. It's just Starblade goes even beyond this in shot power. Which makes it better against some types of superheavies but not all of them.
Quote can be read two ways, "A Starblade is a modified Starlance designed to engage Titan scale combatants [where a regular Starlance isn't]" or "A Starblade is a modified Starlance designed to engage Titan scale combatants[, which is to say it's a modified superheavy Starlance]" and given what we know about this tech I'd bet on a latter reading.
Last edited:
The Starblade being able to one-shot a Scout Titan was something worth mentioning in it's description which indicates that a SH Starlance is nowhere near as powerful since it is only slightly cheaper while having a much higher RoF.
Do you know what the Volcano Cannon is famous for? Being able to cripple Scout Titans in one shot.
This is all stuff I have brought up before so it is baffling that the exact same arguments keep getting trotted out.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Mkay I'm going to end this argument right here: the Superheavy grade Starlance is Not more powerful than a Volcano Cannon. It is more powerful than a turbo-laser, and it definitely has a higher fire rate than either (though a big triple or quadruple Destructor can get pretty close) but a Volcano Cannon is a sawn-off naval lance and while it loses the vast majority of its effective range and half it's overall power, it is still objectively one of the more powerful Superheavy class weapons.
A Starblade, of course, does out power a Volcano Cannon, because it's a specialist titan-killer designed to make Gargents go "Urk!" when you shoot them with it.
A Starblade, of course, does out power a Volcano Cannon, because it's a specialist titan-killer designed to make Gargents go "Urk!" when you shoot them with it.
- Location
- Somewhere Beyond the Sea
I disagree with this on the basis that it would probably be more effective to have a single Starblade + Additional weaponry than a pair of SH starlances + having to cannibalize the weapon slots to be able to fit in the defensive equipment (holo and gravy)
Sure, a VAnvil might shoot slower than a pair of SH starlances, but when every Starblade tank can field a pair of vehicle-grade starlances, a fatesever cannon, a starcarver and three Fatecaster rifles, do you really need a second SH slot?
Plus, those 10 SH starlance shots won't mean anything if it can't punch through a titan's shields before it can level its own guns against us, better to grab the assurance that our titan killer is confirmed to actually kill titans (literal Word of God from the Starblade flavour text backing up this statement) than grab a SH tank that has the possibility of doing so with a pair of SH starlances at the risk of guttering its secondary and tertiary arsenal.
Plus, in comparison to a fatesever, a pair of SH starlances would actually be worse against holo-fields seeing as how it can't aim as effectively as a literal aimbot cannon rewriting time and space to hit its target.
The only reason why the twin starlance design is even a thing is because we might get a surplus of ready-made SH's from our ketches, but if we don't get them (like, say we just get the exotics refunded) or we run out of SLs, the twin SL plan would be even more expensive than the Starblade while being worse at its job.
The cost of the SLS alone would make this SH tank effectively worthless (and basing an entire tank on a finite surplus of expensive weaponry is just not the way we should be designing our SHs)
Here's the math to prove it.
2 Superheavy Starlances = 700EP + 90 SC
1 Starblade = 400EP + 50SC
Just from the SH cannon alone, a Starblade tank is significantly cheaper and less reliant on surplus weaponry than a pair of SH Starlances in addition to being confirmed to do its job as a titan-killer very effectively, sure, it might shoot slower than a pair of SLs, but that doesn't matter since it would be able to take extra weapons to make up for the lost fire rate (like a pair of vehicle-grade starlances as part of the secondary arsenal to mop up medium/main battle tanks)
In fact, lemme elaborate on the failings of the entire SH SL selection while I'm here.
Anvil of Sundering (Starlance Salvage edition)
-[] Weapons: 2x SH Starlance, 1x H. Needler (710 EP, 90 Starcrystal)
At the price of 710 EP (two BAP basically) and 90 SCs, we would get a superheavy tank that is functionally anemic in terms of its arsenal and ill-suited to dealing with any kind of organised resistance (this tank could be very easily overwhelmed by infantry even with an escort), in addition to being a lackluster anti-titan / anti-armour vehicle.
-[ ] Anvil of Stars Titankiller
- [] 2x Superheavy Starlance, retrofitted from decommissioned Assult Ketch CIWB (700 EP, 90 Starcrystal originally)
- [] 1xHolo Field (2EP, 2SS)
- [] 3x Grav Fields (60 EP, 9 SS)
- [] 2xOpen Infantry Capacity (2 SS + 4 open infantry slots)
This one is even more ill-suited for a battlefield, with only a pair of SH starlances as its armament, boarding attempts and being swarmed by infantry would ironically be the safest and easiest way to destroy this SH vehicle, in addition to being entirely reliant upon a finite surplus of starlances and gambling entirely upon its fire rate, it has two infantry transport slots that wouldn't even be enough to transport a single forgefire squad to defend it.
This tank would be a deathtrap for any vehicle crew who has to pilot it and for any infantry that has to ride in it, with a +700EP / 90SC price tag, this is not worth the money or the time to build it, and you're honestly better off just melting the starlances and reclaiming the crystals.
Both of these winning SH tanks neuter their tertiary, primary and secondary armament for the sake of cost-cutting, and gambling our entire ability to handle titans + SHs on the slim chance that a pair of SH starlances can be anywhere near a starblade in terms of its anti-titan / anti-SH capabilities WILL bite us in the ass in the near future.
Better to focus instead on a generalist SH Starblade and grab an MBT while we're at it.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
When the cost of building one is about 120EP for the gear+chassis due to reusing parts vs 700-800EP + chassis.
I know which one will actually be included in retrofits and in some warhosts, and it's not the second one.
The difference of working with what we have vs a design that is most likely going to stay on paper due to costs.
Also helps that double superheavy starlance isn't fucked if 1-2 shots of the starlances miss compared to a starblade when it comes to engaging other super heavies/titans.
Last edited:
So, superheavy starlance is
- more powerful than a turbo-laser destructor
- has more RoF
- less powerful than a volcano cannon
It's a pretty powerful Titan/anti-titan weapon. Two of these is like 4 Warhounds worth of hard punch. I understand that starblade is a great anti-titan gun, I just don't agree that starlance isn't.
- more powerful than a turbo-laser destructor
- has more RoF
- less powerful than a volcano cannon
It's a pretty powerful Titan/anti-titan weapon. Two of these is like 4 Warhounds worth of hard punch. I understand that starblade is a great anti-titan gun, I just don't agree that starlance isn't.
- Location
- Somewhere Beyond the Sea
There's a difference between "Working with what we have" and "Neutering our Superheavy tank with sub-par equipment in the name of cost-cutting." One is done out of a necessity of making infantry and lighter vehicles cheaper, the other is making our dedicated titan-killer bad at killing titans and leaving them functionally defenseless.
For a little bit of a further explanation, a volcano cannon can - at best - cripple a warhound (and our SL's are weaker than that) while a starblade can completely one shot them through their void shields before they can even have a chance to shoot back.
Cost cutting a SH like this is a horrible idea, better to just spend a little bit more to guarantee that out warhosts won't get smeared by the Ork and Imperial titans or out-maneuvered by Biel-Tan's holo-fields.
Just recycle the SH Starlances and redistribute the crystals we get from them to other parts of our army (like, say, the navy, or the army, or building a weapon that can actually threaten a Reaver or a Warlord Titan)
Starlance is good at killing titans. Starblade is better at killing larger titans (like, larger than Knights, I think?). Four starlances are better at killing titans than one Starblade, and that's the economy we're working with for now, as far as I understand.
I agree with these machines not being good generalists and defenseless on their own, but they're still very fast and pretty well protected.
Lots of designs proposed. Is good to see the creative juices flowing! Will admit of all the Titankillers the Suncleave was the one that called to me, having the anti-Titan-specialized Starblade as well as an assortment of 'secondary/tertiary' weapons that should let it fight off almost any hostiles trying to remove it from the field. Yes, this thing should always have an escort, but it's enough of an investment that it should be capable of participating in its own self-defense. And the arguments that this is the one role where we should be willing to splurge are valid. Nor do I think we know what the Base Cost of the Heavy Grav Vehicle is. (If we do let me know please?)
Vaul's Anvil is good too. The Fatesever Cannon's were what won me over to the Suncleave though.
The Forgehammer on the other hand is just a nifty MBT in my opinion. Mixes good effectiveness with affordability. Exactly what we want out of our primary tank.
I don't have an opinion on what should be vehicle #3 yet.
...I feel that this vote could be neater if we could vote 'Only 1 Titankiller role vehicle' or something like that. Or maybe that'd make things so much messier.... As I believe we're in unanimous agreement that we only want 1 Titankiller actually designed yes? We're just a little torn on which one, and even more torn on what else to make with it.
[X] Suncleave Heavy Tank (796EP 68SC 6PS 30 System Slots)
- [x] Heavy Grav Vehicle
-[X] Slots: 22 System Slots Converted
--[X] 6 Heavy Weapon Slots (18 System Slots)
--[X] 1 Ranged Weapon Slot (1 System Slot)
--[X] Vehicle Holo-Field x1, Vehicle Grav-Shield x3 (108 EP) (11 System Slots)
-[X] Weapons:
--[X] Superheavy: 1 Starblade (400 EP 50SC)
--[X] Vehicle: 2 Fatesever Cannon (120EP 4PS)
--[X] Heavy: 2 Starcarver, 2 Fatecaster Rifle, 4 Heavy Needlers (150EP 18SC 2PS)
--[X] Ranged: 3 Needler Rifles (18EP)
[X] "Forgehammer" Main Battle Tank (Max slots)
-[X] Light Grav-Vehicle Chassis
-[X] 1x Starlance (Vehicle Slot)
-[X] 1x Spike Cannon, 1x Heavy Needler (Heavy Slot)
-[X] Vehicle Holo-Field
-[X] 2x Vehicle Grav-Shield
-[X] Convert 4 System Slots -> 1 Heavy + 1 Ranged Slot
-[X] 1x Starcarver (Heavy Slot)
-[X] 1x Needler Rifle (Regular Slot)
-[X] (Crew Equipment), Void Guard Armour, Spike Rifle, CCW Knife.
[X] "Vaul's Anvil" Superheavy Grav-Tank (Revamped)
Vaul's Anvil is good too. The Fatesever Cannon's were what won me over to the Suncleave though.
The Forgehammer on the other hand is just a nifty MBT in my opinion. Mixes good effectiveness with affordability. Exactly what we want out of our primary tank.
I don't have an opinion on what should be vehicle #3 yet.
...I feel that this vote could be neater if we could vote 'Only 1 Titankiller role vehicle' or something like that. Or maybe that'd make things so much messier.... As I believe we're in unanimous agreement that we only want 1 Titankiller actually designed yes? We're just a little torn on which one, and even more torn on what else to make with it.
[X] Suncleave Heavy Tank (796EP 68SC 6PS 30 System Slots)
- [x] Heavy Grav Vehicle
-[X] Slots: 22 System Slots Converted
--[X] 6 Heavy Weapon Slots (18 System Slots)
--[X] 1 Ranged Weapon Slot (1 System Slot)
--[X] Vehicle Holo-Field x1, Vehicle Grav-Shield x3 (108 EP) (11 System Slots)
-[X] Weapons:
--[X] Superheavy: 1 Starblade (400 EP 50SC)
--[X] Vehicle: 2 Fatesever Cannon (120EP 4PS)
--[X] Heavy: 2 Starcarver, 2 Fatecaster Rifle, 4 Heavy Needlers (150EP 18SC 2PS)
--[X] Ranged: 3 Needler Rifles (18EP)
[X] "Forgehammer" Main Battle Tank (Max slots)
-[X] Light Grav-Vehicle Chassis
-[X] 1x Starlance (Vehicle Slot)
-[X] 1x Spike Cannon, 1x Heavy Needler (Heavy Slot)
-[X] Vehicle Holo-Field
-[X] 2x Vehicle Grav-Shield
-[X] Convert 4 System Slots -> 1 Heavy + 1 Ranged Slot
-[X] 1x Starcarver (Heavy Slot)
-[X] 1x Needler Rifle (Regular Slot)
-[X] (Crew Equipment), Void Guard Armour, Spike Rifle, CCW Knife.
[X] "Vaul's Anvil" Superheavy Grav-Tank (Revamped)
Last edited:
What about Starlances makes them a "good" Anti-Titan weapon?
The QM has made it clear that the Starlance is inferior to a Volcano Cannon when it comes to Titan-Killing.
When a non-titan is armed with a Volcano Cannon it gets classified as a Titan-Killer (Baneblade Shadows word or Space Marine Falchion) but this doesn't happen with tanks armed with Turbolaser equivalents.
How can a weapon that is inferior to what is considered the benchmark for Titan-Killing weaponry be considered a "good" anti-titan weapon?
This reeks of copium after the QM clarified that the SH Starlance isn't as powerful as a Volcano Cannon.
- Location
- Utrecht
Grouped the identical votes together so it's less of a mess.
- Location
- Germany
I wouldn't call the weapon that has a baseline higher damage output than a weapon that can somewhat reliably damage other titans, is found in some variant as standard armament on even the larger ones and has way more RoF bad at killing titans.
And calling a vehicle that mounts two of these, bad at killing titans feels like a bad take.
You don't need each shot to be a Volcano Cannon, when you have a lot of shots with damage that will hurt and missing a single shot becomes far less of a problem.
Last edited:
- Location
- Hollister
[X] Anvil of Sundering (Starlance Salvage edition)
[X] Cloudburst Mortar Assault Skimmer
[X] Hailstorm Grav-Tank (402 EP, 5 Psy-Scope)
[X] Cloudburst Mortar Assault Skimmer
[X] Hailstorm Grav-Tank (402 EP, 5 Psy-Scope)
The fact it's good at killing titans? It's more of hint than an argument, but I ran the simulations on unitcrunch to check my intuition, where I represented Starlance as a twice-RoF slightly more powerful Warhound's destructor and Starblade as a big upgrade of Warlord's volcano cannon to the strength and damage numbers that are never met in-game, and Starlance is slightly better at killing knights, and a lot worse at killing Warhounds.
A pair of them, OTOH, is about on par with one Starblade at killing Warhound, and four of them shred it in one turn with almost 100% chance.
EDIT: also, can you please cut it off with personal attacks?
Last edited:
DarkLight140
Credit to Team
- Location
- Lost in my thoughts
I have missed just about this entire vote, but I was happy to see my "nothing but a vehicle starlance" speeder design from last vehicle vote see a re-implementation:
[X] Aurora Tank Destroyer(164 EP, 20 starcrystals)
To explain why this is great is pretty straightforward: There is no vehicle in our arsenal which can move as fast as a speeder can while also holding a holo-field and a vehicle scale weapon. For holding any smaller gun, you want to use a jetbike. If holding any larger guns and willing to give up speed for it, you want to use a grav-vehicle. But a speeder is in the sweet spot where it can support our zoomy jetbike teams while toting around a huge gun with more firepower than they can possibly carry, bringing the overall potency of our flanking and raiding forces to the next level and making them able to ravage far, far tougher targets than would otherwise be possible.
This capability is one we very badly want. It deserves a place in our arsenal.
The Cloudflare is a great idea with a catchy name and I like it, but it brings no ability to kill things that jetbikes simply cannot to the field. While I would be glad to see it get in as one of our three vehicle votes here, that's only if we're having two speeder designs win and the Aurora already has.
The heavy tank discussion is interesting but I don't have the time to participate. For wild idea purposes, please consider the efficiency of carrying 18 or 24 open-topped infantry as small guns while the tank handles the mobility and big guns, like a Mirage that deletes titans on the side. You don't have to vote for it, but think on it for a minute and decide whether you think a cultural habit of basically building our vehicles with the idea that their exteriors will be crawling with power armored infantry at all times is cool to you or not.
[X] Aurora Tank Destroyer(164 EP, 20 starcrystals)
To explain why this is great is pretty straightforward: There is no vehicle in our arsenal which can move as fast as a speeder can while also holding a holo-field and a vehicle scale weapon. For holding any smaller gun, you want to use a jetbike. If holding any larger guns and willing to give up speed for it, you want to use a grav-vehicle. But a speeder is in the sweet spot where it can support our zoomy jetbike teams while toting around a huge gun with more firepower than they can possibly carry, bringing the overall potency of our flanking and raiding forces to the next level and making them able to ravage far, far tougher targets than would otherwise be possible.
This capability is one we very badly want. It deserves a place in our arsenal.
The Cloudflare is a great idea with a catchy name and I like it, but it brings no ability to kill things that jetbikes simply cannot to the field. While I would be glad to see it get in as one of our three vehicle votes here, that's only if we're having two speeder designs win and the Aurora already has.
The heavy tank discussion is interesting but I don't have the time to participate. For wild idea purposes, please consider the efficiency of carrying 18 or 24 open-topped infantry as small guns while the tank handles the mobility and big guns, like a Mirage that deletes titans on the side. You don't have to vote for it, but think on it for a minute and decide whether you think a cultural habit of basically building our vehicles with the idea that their exteriors will be crawling with power armored infantry at all times is cool to you or not.
Last edited:
Do you see the issue here?
The page you pulled up even spells it out for you:
Fundamentally the issue is that there is a misguided urge to go for what is perceived as the budget option (already debunked since 2 SH Starlances cost more than 1 Starblade) when all it does is compromise the vehicles ability to do it's job.
You do realize that the Starblade's RoF deficiency is only in comparison to the Starlance, not a general flaw. You'd need to give it a RoF comparable to a Turbolaser. I've got several posts repeating that same fact.
I can't see how much you've buffed the damage by for the Starblade but the exact description compares it's effect on a Warhound to what happens when a Guardsman is hit by a las-cannon.
The page you pulled up even spells it out for you:
While the SH Starlance is indeed more potent than a bog standard Turbolaser the fact that you would likely still need multiple shots just to drop a Scout Titan's shields as a is quite damning.
Fundamentally the issue is that there is a misguided urge to go for what is perceived as the budget option (already debunked since 2 SH Starlances cost more than 1 Starblade) when all it does is compromise the vehicles ability to do it's job.
That links takes me to an inaccessible page.
You do realize that the Starblade's RoF deficiency is only in comparison to the Starlance, not a general flaw. You'd need to give it a RoF comparable to a Turbolaser. I've got several posts repeating that same fact.
I can't see how much you've buffed the damage by for the Starblade but the exact description compares it's effect on a Warhound to what happens when a Guardsman is hit by a las-cannon.
grimely
Twink Death Sufferer
A turbo-laser is quite capable of damaging Titans, but it's more of a brawling weapon than what you'd use in a dedicated Titan-killer. Doctrinally, a Titan-killer is a glass cannon, a mobile weapons platform the survival of which is based off of either killing its opponent in one shot or firing from beyond range of any retaliatory strike. While you can't get that with a single turbo-laser, or even two, you can definitely kill an enemy Titan with a platoon's worth of them before it can fire back.
Fixed.
You're pulling "comparable to Turbo-laser" out of thin air - can be less, can be more, can be comparable. But fun fact, Bellicosa Volcano Lance has in-game RoF exactly the same as Turbo-laser, so I used that number.
I buffed strength to 40 and damage to 25.
- Location
- United Kingdom
It's been repeatedly stated to you that we can just take the Starlances that we remove from the Ketch's and use them on the tank, which means they're free.
And since when does 'takes multiple shots to get through a shield' mean 'it's utterly pointless to use this weapon against it'? Most shields take multiple shots to get through, otherwise they'd be pretty shit shields.
Last edited: