Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
Alectai said:
... It's not even an option right now, you're literally looking at the turn 1 list and assuming it must apply indefinitely.

The QM has even Said "Your Armor is fine, you don't have anything to worry about there"

Why are you still beating on this drum.

The QM has literally, full stop, told us that our current armor designs are fine at worst, why is this even still up for discussion?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because you want to build an Amour Foundry for it, to lock us into a piece of sub-optimal gear with narrow applicability forever as one of our few mass produced pieces of standard gear unless we spend even more AP to fix it.

Fine is not the same as good, or synergistic. For one of the few things we're mass producing, I think we should try to do better than 'fine'.

If this was being kept as a specialist piece that would rarely be custom made for niche purpose, that would be fine. It's not. This is our baseline equipment.
 
Last edited:
Alratan said:
Because you want to build an Amour Foundry for it, to lock us into a piece of sub-optimal gear with narrow applicability forever unless we spend even more AP to fix it.

Fine is not the same as good, or synergistic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I...

(Bleeds from the nose)

Right, I have to go do something about this aneurism I just contracted, taking a break.
 
Alratan said:
Because you want to build an Amour Foundry for it, to lock us into a piece of sub-optimal gear with narrow applicability forever unless we spend even more AP to fix it.

Fine is not the same as good, or synergistic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Doesn't lock us into it.
That is just wrong.

And yes i say that as someone that wants a crew optimized armor, but that is for a different reason.

Edit:
That kind of bad faith argument make me very much side with Alectai here.
 
Last edited:
Skjadir said:
Doesn't lock us into it.
That is just wrong.

And yes i say that as someone that wants a crew optimized armor but that is for a different reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It locks us in unless we spend more AP to change it, which will likely to be hard to scrounge up given the pressure on Bonesinger AP, and it builds a stockpile that there'll be pressure to make use of more widely, and once it's embedded in our forces it'll be harder to rmove as that will require spending more AP on refits.

We're talking about spending twice as much AP as we did to design it on embedding production of it. That makes it eveb harder to justify replacing it in future, as it would mean 'throwing away' 2 AP rather than 1.
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
The QM has literally, full stop, told us that our current armor designs are fine at worst, why is this even still up for discussion? We have so many other things we could be doing than trying to bleed a tiny bit more efficiency out!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The armour is getting so much attention because, I imagine, it has received a good deal of attention early on, was the first of the many designing phases this quest has going for it and it was fun at that point. People just picked up the ball and keep running with it, doubly so because of the "jeans and t-shirt" meming of the canon Eldar I imagine. It just stuck out compared to other things, and the constant addition of technology has people coming back to the design board, at which point, might as well go the whole mile, no?
 
Skjadir said:
Edit:
That kind of bad faith argument make me very much side with Alectai here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It very much isn't bad faith. If we don't want to lock it in, why are we building a foundry for it, when there are many other things we could build a foundry for?

What's the reason to invest that AP in this rather than in something else if it isn't intended to accomplish that.
 
The Forgeguard is semi powered not powered, since it says power-assist. Just as a reminder.

Mechanis said:
[ ] Unpowered
Unpowered armor is born entirely by the wearer's own strength, sharply limiting the maximum plating which can be carried and the number of systems which may be fitted. On the other hand, it is also the least expensive to produce.
Cost Multiplier: 1 | Slot Multiplier: 1

[ ] Semi-powered
Semi-powered armor—sometimes called "power-assist" armor—incorporates a simple exo-frame that carries most of the armor's own weight. While this provides no functional increase in strength for the wearer, it does allow greater mass of plating and systems be carried. Obviously this increases the base cost of the armor, however.
Cost Multiplier: 1.25 | Slot Multiplier: 1.5

[ ] Powered
Fully powered armor does not simply bear its own mass, but adds its tireless mechanical strength to that of the wearer—this can allow one to fight for far longer as the armor carries at least some of the wearer's own mass, engage in feats like throwing light vehicles at enemies or tearing lesser foes limb from limb barehanded, and carry heavier weapons and equipment than would normally be possible. Obviously, Powered armor is the most expensive type to manufacture in exchange for this capability.
Cost Multiplier: 1.75 | Slot Multiplier: 2.5
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alratan said:
Light Powered Armour: 1.75
Autotargeters: 0.5
Extended Operation Modification: 0.3
Improved Power-Assist: 0.3
Total: 2.85 =3
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Shouldn't this be 4 EP
Base EP cost is 1 and powered is 1.75
Mechanis said:
[ ] Light
Light armor offers the least protection and room for integrated systems, but have the lowest base cost.
Base EP cost 1 | Base Integrated Systems: 1
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Alratan said:
It locks us in unless we spend more AP to change it, which will likely to be hard to scrounge up given the pressure on Bonesinger AP, and it builds a stockpile that there'll be pressure to make use of more widely, and once it's embedded in our forces it'll be harder to rmove as that will require spending more AP on refits.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...
It will be used for the retrofits or stuffed into some vault or traded away.

I think you very strong overestimate the pressure a single foundry puts on us to use it.

More so when we this at the moment not for the gear but to get information on the logistics.
Information we only get by actually building them.

Information that is pretty critical for the upcoming army redesign.


____

This is more symbolic considering it still has a pretty good lead.
Still don't like the conversion field flaws/advantages, but it still has my support on priciple here.
What i have no problem with is the foundries that get build.
[X] Plan: The Aeldmoot

Also keeping my own vote.
[x] Plan: The Aeldmoot, industry edition v3
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have to agree that the armors we have now are good enough, particularly given our need to design post fall capital ship models for refit and construction purposes. this is particularly prudent since it takes time to build new ships since our current numbers even fully refit aren't going to cover it, which means if we want the numbers to start clearing Ork worlds before the next century, we'll probably want to start building new capitol ships by turn 8
 
The shy Observer said:
Shouldn't this be 4 EP
Base EP cost is 1 and powered is 1.75
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Powered, etc, is a multiplier not an addition. So Powered Light armour is a base of 1 multiplied by 1.75.

Skjadir said:
...
It will be used for the retrofits or stuffed into some vault or traded away.

I think you very strong overestimate the pressure a single foundry puts on us to use it.

More so when we this at the moment not for the gear but to get information on the logistics.
Information we only get by actually building them.

Information that is pretty critical for the upcoming army redesign.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That very much doesn't answer my point. If the goal isn't to lock it in for the long term, why would we build a Foundry for it rather than a Foundry for something else that we know we will keep using long term? That gives us the same information and won't cost AP later to refit the foundry. The whole point of building foundries is to lock production of things in for the long term. Their lack of flexibility is the point. Otherwise we'd be better off just spending the AP directly on making Brigantine.

If we build a brigantine foundry, I believe it will be much harder to replace it in future because of the extra cost of the reconfiguration reducing the incremental benefit.
 
Last edited:
Alratan said:
That very much doesn't answer my point. If the goal isn't to lock it in for the long term, why would we build a Foundry for it rather than a Foundry for something else that we know we will keep long term? That gibes is the same information.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Retrofitting is still ongoing for our militia mess for at least 5-6 turns.
After which we should have all the easy basic knocked out techwise to start with a solid army redesign.
Something that likely will take 2-3 Turns on its own, as we will have a lot of tech to feed into our army.
Potentially even new military chassis for our vehicle.

Followed likely by strong build up for the next ~5 Turns, before the raising of new single detachments will likely start.

Having an easy mass produced design to tickle feed into them for that duraction makes sense.
It also makes sense to build at least some large stockpile of break in case of a needed mass conscription.
 
Alratan said:
That very much doesn't answer my point. If the goal isn't to lock it in for the long term, why would we build a Foundry for it rather than a Foundry for something else that we know we will keep using long term? That gives us the same information and won't cost AP later to refit the foundry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly why will we not be using it? This is something that we will be using for decades if not centuries because while it's not the ultimate armour or the perfect specialist suit it's still good armour that we can knock out in large numbers.
 
F0lkL0re said:
Exactly why will we not be using it? This is something that we will be using for decades if not centuries because while it's not the ultimate armour or the perfect specialist suit it's still good armour that we can knock out in large numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because VGA is pretty much better in all roles where it can be used.
It's just going to take a bit to build all the industry for that.

That said Brigantine is ok in the short term (next 5-10 turns) in use with the retrofits and after that as an emergency armor, but shouldn't be included in any new designs.
In part because people in Brigantine can't use Plasma weapons.
 
Skjadir said:
Because VGA is pretty much better in all roles where it can be used.
It's just going to take a bit to build all the industry for that.

That said Brigantine is ok in the short term (next 5-10 turns) in use with the retrofits and after that as an emergency armor, but shouldn't be included in any new designs.
In part because people in Brigantine can't use Plasma weapons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not talking about new designs though (unless maybe it's for pilots) I'm talking about at all. I'm perfectly happy with and indeed want to make VGW foundries but this insistence that Brigantine is some sort of burden on us is kind of crazy if you ask me especially with the QM saying that it's fine if not good.
 
Skjadir said:
Retrofitting is still ongoing for our militia mess for at least 5-6 turns.
After which we should have all the easy basic knocked out techwise to start with a solid army redesign.
Something that likely will take 2-3 Turns on its own, as we will have a lot of tech to feed into our army.
Potentially even new military chassis for our vehicle.

Followed likely by strong build up for the next ~5 Turns, before the raising of new single detachments will likely start.

Having an easy mass produced design to tickle feed into them for that duraction makes sense.
It also makes sense to build at least some large stockpile of break in case of a needed mass conscription.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's loads of gear our army needs, including gear we know we'll probably want to build forever. Why build a foundry for a design we ever plan or think we may decommission?

And if we think we'll only be making something for a few turns it'll probably be as efficient to directly manufacture a stockpile of it with BAP directly. Foundries are intended to only pay off in the long term. If they pay off in the short term like you're suggesting because of refitting I think something would be going wrong.

Because of our allies and the end of the Biel Tan threat, the potnetial need for mass conscription is gone. No amount of wargear we can make in the near term will be a drop in the ocean compared to our allies' warhosts.

F0lkL0re said:
Exactly why will we not be using it? This is something that we will be using for decades if not centuries because while it's not the ultimate armour or the perfect specialist suit it's still good armour that we can knock out in large numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The Brigantine cost 1 AP to design. In return it locks our troops with it from ever using our rather nice (and relatively very cheap) plasma weapons and is generally worth less than an equally expensive powered armour even without that factor. I'm happy to throw away the 1 AP sunk cost in order to be able to make something slightly better. 1 AP just isn't enough. If this is something we make in large numbers then the marginal quality improvement of something better would be magnified.

For a niche armour that we don't make in huge numbers, being slightly less good wouldn't matter. For something you're talking about being deployed in large numbers incremental improvement becomes much more important.

Given how good value our plasma weapons are then if we want a cheap mass producible armour we want it to be powered so we can exploit that synergy.
 
Last edited:
So!

On a completely different subject, I found a note by Mechanis that the Superheavy Graviton Lance drills holes larger than an Ork's head.

Given the size of an Ork's head, this makes me happy to believe that the vehicular version punches holes larger than an Eldar's forearm, i. e. large enough for Fatesever Cannon to shoot through the holes.

So, I've got the outline of a superiority fighter:

Dark Hawk Air Racer
Graviton Thruster Lance (v)
Fatesever Cannon (v)
2x Missile Launchers (h)
holofield
grav shield
?

The Zahr-Tann Crossbow Interceptor is mounting 4x heavy missile launchers to go with their double lascannon; I'm guessing they're using a militarized hull with additional heavy slots built in rather than a converted air racer, and we're not going to manage that. But they still mount a holofield and a flare shield in there somehow, so I think the flare shield is compact, too. We end up with two empty system slots instead; I figure we put extra thrusters and/or targeting computers in there once we've researched them.
 
Last edited:
F0lkL0re said:
I'm not talking about new designs though (unless maybe it's for pilots) I'm talking about at all. I'm perfectly happy with and indeed want to make VGW foundries but this insistence that Brigantine is some sort of burden on us is kind of crazy if you ask me especially with the QM saying that it's fine if not good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, it's mostly about long term logistics and army composition.
It has to do with the overall army redesign and the things we so far learned about AP costs of retrofits.

Problem, with the (current) army/detachment design is that if you want to change anything when it comes to what a detachment gets raised you need to pay 2 Steward AP to do so otherwise they get raised with the old gear and you can pay AP to retrofit.

That means there is a high incentive to really nail detachment designs and here is also the part with Brigantine.
Including it in the short term is fine, but if we want change over to VGA use we pay a lot of AP extra to make this change instead of doing it early.

I hope that was understandable ?
This doesn't mean Brigantine is bad, is perfectly fine for the retrofits where we kind of want masses of armor pretty fast. It just shouldn't be in the rationalize votes if we can avoid it at all, due to the delayed cost.

But that is also something we just learned.
 
Alratan said:
Because you want to build an Amour Foundry for it, to lock us into a piece of sub-optimal gear with narrow applicability forever as one of our few mass produced pieces of standard gear unless we spend even more AP to fix it.

Fine is not the same as good, or synergistic. For one of the few things we're mass producing, I think we should try to do better than 'fine'.

If this was being kept as a specialist piece that would rarely be custom made for niche purpose, that would be fine. It's not. This is our baseline equipment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We wont be locked in though? We can retool any factory at any time if we decide we dont want to make it anymore. A factory isnt permanent.
 
I mean, I could see us replacing Ithilmar. it's protecting our all important Psychers and we probably look at our tech turn 9, and say "Yeah, we can do better".

void guard I think though is fine. any additions would just make it even more expensive. so why not just make a plan that get's a void guard armor and needle rifles up?
Alratan said:
There's loads of gear our army needs, including gear we know we'll probably want to build forever. Why build a foundry for a design we ever plan or think we may decommission?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
because we can cheaply refit it later and it gives us the ability to emergency conscript soldiers if the chaos comes knocking before our proper military refit is done?
 
Skjadir said:
Ah, it's mostly about long term logistics and army composition.
It has to do with the overall army redesign and the things we so far learned about AP costs of retrofits.

Problem, with the (current) army/detachment design is that if you want to change anything when it comes to what a detachment gets raised you need to pay 2 Steward AP to do so otherwise they get raised with the old gear and you can pay AP to retrofit.

That means there is a high incentive to really nail detachment designs and here is also the part with Brigantine.
Including it in the short term is fine, but if we want change over to VGA use we pay a lot of AP extra to make this change instead of doing it early.

I hope that was understandable ?
This doesn't mean Brigantine is bad, is perfectly fine for the retrofits where we kind of want masses of armor pretty fast. It just shouldn't be in the rationalize votes if we can avoid it at all, due to the delayed cost.

But that is also something we just learned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
you do know that once we design new attachments, we can just use our martial AP to raise them up using the gear image select during the design process? refit is inefficient because your using stewardship for a warrior action.
 
Randino Treviani said:
I mean, I could see us replacing Ithilmar. it's protecting our all important Psychers and we probably look at our tech turn 9, and say "Yeah, we can do better".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One of the things I would really like to look into is using Starcrystals to power the Ithilmar suit and replace the grav-shield with a infantry version. This combine should both massively lower the price and increase the slots by a large amount.
 
Alratan said:
There's loads of gear our army needs, including gear we know we'll probably want to build forever. Why build a foundry for a design we ever plan or think we may decommission?

And if we think we'll only be making something for a few turns it'll probably be as efficient to directly manufacture a stockpile of it with BAP directly. Foundries are intended to only pay off in the long term. If they pay off in the short term like you're suggesting because of refitting I think something would be going wrong.

Because of our allies and the end of the Biel Tan threat, the potnetial need for mass conscription is gone. No amount of wargear we can make in the near term will be a drop in the ocean compared to our allies' warhosts.



The Brigantine cost 1 AP to design. In return it locks our troops with it from ever using our rather nice (and relatively very cheap) plasma weapons and is generally worth less than an equally expensive powered armour even without that factor. I'm happy to throw away the 1 AP sunk cost in order to be able to make something slightly better. 1 AP just isn't enough. If this is something we make in large numbers then the marginal quality improvement of something better would be magnified.

For a niche armour that we don't make in huge numbers, being slightly less good wouldn't matter. For something you're talking about being deployed in large numbers incremental improvement becomes much more important.

Given how good value our plasma weapons are then if we want a cheap mass producible armour we want it to be powered so we can exploit that synergy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We will be decomissioning every single piece of armor we currently have available to us at *some* point in the quest. We will be discovering new technologies and advancing our tech base as THE premier Vaulish faction of the Aeldari people. Our Grand Academy project allows us to steal ideas from other species and that one feudal planet with Golden Age Humanity wrecks in orbit, was specifically pointed out as a place we can go to loot for shiny gubbins.

If we decide to wait to build a foundry for a suit of armor we will never replace we wont build a foundary until after Big E is placed permanently on his golden toilet seat. Ideally we will be making Mk2 Ithilmar (Infantry scale grav shields are going to be a thing eventually, explicitly so, allowing us to stick more stuff into the Ithilmar), we are going to be making a Mk2 VGW, a Mk2 Brigandine, etc. Stuff will change, we will gain new things to produce. It is inevitable.

But twenty perfect suits of armor next week is worth five suits today. We cannot put off producing wargear forever while waiting for the suit we are never going to replace. Yes its technically not efficient points wise, but we cannot just sit back and wait for perfection while we make Zhar-Tann do all of our dirty work for us. We need to contribute too and to do that we need to start making wargear to give our soldiers.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top