we haven't decided on a sealed transport. some of us are against it. a grav transport filled with VGW is going to have multiple grav shields deflecting stray blasts that find them inside there Holo field anyway, which is more effective than a chassis of medium armor against most of the fire that doesn't just miss us in the first place.

I think whole point behind upgrading armor at all was to put some armor over the engine.

overall the people obsessing over this are applying a disproportionate amount of value to this marginal addition to our defensibility which would only have an impact a handful of times a century at great detriment to overall combat effectiveness during that century. these individuals need to drop the headcanon of perfect defense and the ability to field an army which takes as close to absolutely zero risks as we can manage and still command an effective fighting force.

We very much want sealed transports, they are pretty much the best we can do for assault transport.

And the medium armor is still helpful even on an open-top transport, because it keeps the vehicle itself some better armor.

Light armor is still something that I expect most infantry scale weapons to being able to go through to some degree.
Better armor also protects better against explosions and aoe damage which again needed for the sealed transport.

And why it gets brought up ?
Because we are currently doing the chassis designs, and they won't change much after this.
Overall giving up the medium armor for an extra system slot that likely will end up being a single-ranged weapon is not worth it.

We can change the slot usage in the design phase if needed. We can't add armor there.

So far you are the one that downplays the medium armor quite strongly by saying it is a marginal addition to the overall defense.
 
remember that our current tank and IFV are both using the light grav chassis:
Slots: 0 R | 2 H | 1 V | 0 SH | 12 S

oddly that is more then a new one with start with:
[ ] Light
Light Vehicles are typically configured for various roles such as Infantry Fighting Vehicles or light transports, second line gun carriers, and light tanks. Examples include the Imperial Chimera and its various offspring and relatives or most Ork "Trukks" and "Wartraks".
Light Vehicles begin with 10 system slots.

So it might be begins means its 10 with several choices to add more things including slots as the current one uses 24 slots in total(12 system 2 heavy that cost 3 each and one vehicle weapon that cost 6_
 
We will probably eventually want a sealed transport for delivering troops directly into the teeth of the enemy. Im sure thats going to come up, one day.
 
remember that our current tank and IFV are both using the light grav chassis:
Slots: 0 R | 2 H | 1 V | 0 SH | 12 S

oddly that is more then a new one with start with:
[ ] Light
Light Vehicles are typically configured for various roles such as Infantry Fighting Vehicles or light transports, second line gun carriers, and light tanks. Examples include the Imperial Chimera and its various offspring and relatives or most Ork "Trukks" and "Wartraks".
Light Vehicles begin with 10 system slots.

So it might be begins means its 10 with several choices to add more things including slots as the current one uses 24 slots in total(12 system 2 heavy that cost 3 each and one vehicle weapon that cost 6_

I mean that was mention a bit before from several people that we are dealing with a medium chassis and not a light one ?

We will probably eventually want a sealed transport for delivering troops directly into the teeth of the enemy. Im sure thats going to come up, one day.
Its the kind of transport we want for all of our assault/melee troops.
So it's one of the more basic capabilities we want.
 
remember that our current tank and IFV are both using the light grav chassis:
Slots: 0 R | 2 H | 1 V | 0 SH | 12 S

oddly that is more then a new one with start with:
[ ] Light
Light Vehicles are typically configured for various roles such as Infantry Fighting Vehicles or light transports, second line gun carriers, and light tanks. Examples include the Imperial Chimera and its various offspring and relatives or most Ork "Trukks" and "Wartraks".
Light Vehicles begin with 10 system slots.

So it might be begins means its 10 with several choices to add more things including slots as the current one uses 24 slots in total(12 system 2 heavy that cost 3 each and one vehicle weapon that cost 6_

They really don't see to be. Despite the fact that it's called a light grav tank it's clearly using a medium chassis, which is why it starts with 24 system slots.

It may be a light tank but it's a medium vehicle.
 
It may be a light tank but it's a medium vehicle.
the Light Grav-Vehicle Iteration
List this at the end:
Finally, you may assign the vehicle's System and Weapon slots freely. By default the vehicle has twenty-four (24) slots, if Enhanced Grav-Engine is taken, this is increased to twenty-five (25) or twenty-six (26) slots.

So the light Grav-Vehicle has 24 system slots

that is why i want a medium chassis, we do not have one listed in the armory post and i think we could design a chassis that can be both be used as an APC and as an tank without breaking the bank when we outfit a detachment with them.
 
the Light Grav-Vehicle Iteration
List this at the end:
Finally, you may assign the vehicle's System and Weapon slots freely. By default the vehicle has twenty-four (24) slots, if Enhanced Grav-Engine is taken, this is increased to twenty-five (25) or twenty-six (26) slots.

So the light Grav-Vehicle has 24 system slots

that is why i want a medium chassis, we do not have one listed in the armory post and i think we could design a chassis that can be both be used as an APC and as an tank without breaking the bank when we outfit a detachment with them.

That is because the light grav vehicle is a medium chassis not a light one.

Same as the heavy grav vehicle being a super heavy chassis and not a heavy one.

The names are somewhat miss leading there.

The chassis that we have nothing for is the heavy chassis and is why some people are voting to develop one.
 
Last edited:
I get the impression from the description that this weapon requires the gunner to keep aiming the projector at the target until it detonates, functioning in some ways like a real life beam riding or laser guided munition.
Same here, which is one of the reasons I'd be very happy if Perfect Grav Hybridization lets us pair Point Singularity Projectors with Grav Thrusters to yeet the singularity into the target quickly.

The Point Singularity Projector is finicky as is. Though quite powerful. It reminds me of Nova from Warframe's Antimatter Drop ability.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Vulkhari Fighting Vehicles Continued


Looking at potential chassis for our long range artillery and AA.

I think we are looking for both at least at a heavy chassis if not super heavy one.

The artillery will want to go with a super heavy slot which means 30 systems slots hard to get that on anything but the heavy/super heavy chassis.

The AA if we want to kind of copy the canon Eldar AA also uses a super heavy slot that is then stuffed with 3 linked vehicle weapons. Otherwise, we are still looking at a good number of system slots needed for the vehicle weapon slots so likely still a heavy chassis.


The main question that I have is if we can cheat with our logistics bit more by using the ammo generation from the Needler/Spike weapons to create more than pure kinetic projectiles. "Specialty" rounds for our tanks would sound really nice.
Same goes for our artillery.
We don't need to use a superheavy slot to copy a Firestorm. All the firestorm's scatter laser is essentially three regular scatter lasers (a heavy weapon) in a single turret. Same way the Fateshredder is three Fatecaster Rifles (also a heavy heavy weapon) in a single mount, which is also set up for a anti-infantry focus. Trying to use three vehicle weapons for the equivalent of a Firestorm is overkill when we can just put together three Heavy Needlers.

The closest thing we currently have to a Firestorm is the Needlestorm. Similar turret (except with Fate exotics), and same enclosed transport capacity. Its why I've been suggesting a Needlestorm upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Its the kind of transport we want for all of our assault/melee troops.
So it's one of the more basic capabilities we want

Won't someone think of the blade dancers!

More seriously, it's not just about melee troops. Every time an APC tries to drop off some troops where the enemy can see them the incentive is the same, to focus fire as they disembark. This applies if we're dropping off melee troops or line infantry with ranged weapons, the enemy has a big incentive to drop an air bursting artillery shell on their heads as soon as the transport comes to a halt.

As long as our transports have to stop to let passengers on or off we'll have this issue, and avoiding it means getting very high tech with inertial compensation belts and jet packs.
the Light Grav-Vehicle Iteration
List this at the end:
Finally, you may assign the vehicle's System and Weapon slots freely. By default the vehicle has twenty-four (24) slots, if Enhanced Grav-Engine is taken, this is increased to twenty-five (25) or twenty-six (26) slots.

So the light Grav-Vehicle has 24 system slots

that is why i want a medium chassis, we do not have one listed in the armory post and i think we could design a chassis that can be both be used as an APC and as an tank without breaking the bank when we outfit a detachment with them.

Our 'light grav vehicle has a base of 24 slots'. That's identical to the medium vehicle chassis.

I strongly doubt that's a coincidence.

Our current speeder chassis has an effective base of 10 slots, I think it's our version of a light vehicle.

Also, see here:

Heavy Grav Vehicles are Superheavies; the chassis that things like the Cobra and Scorpion can trace their ancestry to. The Light Grav-Vehicle, similarly, is what the ubiquitous Falcon chassis eventually evolved from; while the Dark Eldar Raider is essentially just a Grav-Barge.

[ ] Medium
Medium Vehicles encompass the majority of battle tanks such as the Rhino and its assorted variants of the Imperium, the Eldar Falcon and its family of derivatives, the famous Leman Russ Battle Tank, and so on.
Medium Vehicles begin with 24 system slots.

What we call the 'light grav vehicle' is what the Falcon was iterated from. The Falcon is explicitly a medium chassis.
 
We will probably eventually want a sealed transport for delivering troops directly into the teeth of the enemy. Im sure thats going to come up, one day.
delivering troops into the teeth of the enemy will be the job of an assault shuttles with appropriate vehicle grade weapons, armor well beyond medium, and room for several squads since delivering them one squad at a time is ineffective for driving back the enemy and establishing a safe zone for further infantry to be dropped off in. it's the entire problem with the light grav needs medium armor argument.

it makes incorrect assumptions about the vessels role, which is to transport troops around a field of battle for rapid maneuver purposes and to prevent encirclement in the event of an irregular retreatA, not deliver troops into the midst of enemy formation and dump them strait into sustained combat at neer melee range. we are going to have specialized squads for that sort of thing, and there going to be in a whole different tier of vehicle than seventy or eighty percent of our troops.
 
delivering troops into the teeth of the enemy will be the job of an assault shuttles with appropriate vehicle grade weapons, armor well beyond medium, and room for several squads since delivering them one squad at a time is ineffective for driving back the enemy and establishing a safe zone for further infantry to be dropped off in. it's the entire problem with the light grav needs medium armor argument.

it makes incorrect assumptions about the vessels role, which is to transport troops around a field of battle for rapid maneuver purposes and to prevent encirclement in the event of an irregular retreatA, not deliver troops into the midst of enemy formation and dump them strait into sustained combat at neer melee range. we are going to have specialized squads for that sort of thing, and there going to be in a whole different tier of vehicle than seventy or eighty percent of our troops.

Any time a unit of troops need to be dropped off or picked up in sight of the enemy better armour will be useful.

It's not just for melee troops. It's for all front line troops with the exception of the crew for any towed long ranged artillery. If you're driving around on a battlefield with a bunch of infantry in the back, the enemy is going to want to blow you and them up when you stop to disembark. That's just what you do. And it's hard to rely on speed and agility to avoid being shot when the role inherently and unavoidably involves stopping,

Any role that we'd want to use this vehicle chassis as a troop transport for, medium armour would help. For roles where they won't be under fire when they disembark, they can keep using the grav barge.

Same for SPGs. This design should be trying to do something new and different and better than a role a vehicle we already have can do. This vehicle would be for artillery pieces intended to operate closer to the front; like mortars or direct fire weapons. When we have long range missiles we can fire from fifty miles away, they can go on the back of grav barges.

And the limits on organic transport bite hard here.

The question we need to ask isn't what would the best medium grav vehicle be in isolation.

It's, given we already have an existing medium grav vehicle design, what new design pairs with that to produce the best combination. The answer is probably the design that's most different and makes the most different trade offs, so the redundancy between the two is reduced and we can cover the greatest range of use cases between the two of them.

It's the same reason I advocate for designing a new heavy chassis. It's because doing so opens up the greatest amount of design space for future vehicles.
 
Last edited:
delivering troops into the teeth of the enemy will be the job of an assault shuttles with appropriate vehicle grade weapons, armor well beyond medium, and room for several squads since delivering them one squad at a time is ineffective for driving back the enemy and establishing a safe zone for further infantry to be dropped off in. it's the entire problem with the light grav needs medium armor argument.

it makes incorrect assumptions about the vessels role, which is to transport troops around a field of battle for rapid maneuver purposes and to prevent encirclement in the event of an irregular retreatA, not deliver troops into the midst of enemy formation and dump them strait into sustained combat at neer melee range. we are going to have specialized squads for that sort of thing, and there going to be in a whole different tier of vehicle than seventy or eighty percent of our troops.
The only thing I have to say to this is assault shuttles may not always have access to the battlespace. But you are correct otherwise.
 
The only thing I have to say to this is assault shuttles may not always have access to the battlespace. But you are correct otherwise.

I don't think there's a reason to even use assault shuttles on regular battlefields that I can see.

What advantage do they have over the standard Eldar tactic of temporary burrowings of the Webway that vehicles and infantry can directly deploy through?

The reason for organic transports is to use them after deploying, so that squads can re-embark and redeploy to another part of the battlefield.

That's where medium armour helps a lot again, making it safer for the transport to stop and for troops to board it when under fire.

It's not just about the initial deployment, but about mounting and dismounting repeatedly from the transport.

The high mobility of the Eldar makes this kind of tactic work better, as you can rapidly redeploy troops across a theatre. You can't do that if your transports aren't designed to enter the battlefield to collect them.

Our existing grab barges can transport troops around when no one's shooting at them intensely. The reason why we'd want a new design is for scenarios where they do need more armour.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's a reason to even use assault shuttles on regular battlefields that I can see.
I could see a use for them as an independent Heavy Support unit, carrying lots of guns for suppressing fire as they do a drop somewhere very hostile. And for extraction under the same circumstances.

The kind of place where we wouldn't want to open a Webway Portal because something hostile would take the opportunity to go through it.

That's not a "right now" kind of investment, though. Won't need those anytime soon.
 
Basically, my issue with the winning plan is that we don't need three/four designs for medium-ish grav vehicles which we have between the existing 'light' grab vehicle, the grab barge, the iterated design, and the proposed new design.

Worse, the new design isn't as different as it can be from the two existing designs.

If we want a medium chassis for roles where the vehicle isn't intended to enter heavy combat, like ferrying around troops away from the line of fire, or carrying a vehicle grade artillery piece a long way behind the line of contact, we can just use one of the two existing designs for that.

What we can't get an existing design to do well are jobs that a medium armoured design would be better at, like being an armoured personnel carrier, or being a short ranged SPG. They're talks for which more armour is more important than acceleration. For things where acceleration matters most we have the two existing designs.

This applies to a new vehicle. We have nothing that really can fill the role of a heavy vehicle. This is particularly true if a heavy vehicle can mount a super-heavy weapon slot, but it still applies. 38 is a lot more than 24 base slots.

If we want a MBT or a heavy as opposed to light SPG, this is the chassis we want. We can just squeeze a lot more gun in than we can on the medium design, which is what you want for these roles. I think, particularly as we more likely to be avoiding exotics, so need to make size and quantity a quality of its own.

I could see a use for them as an independent Heavy Support unit, carrying lots of guns for suppressing fire as they do a drop somewhere very hostile. And for extraction under the same circumstances.

The kind of place where we wouldn't want to open a Webway Portal because something hostile would take the opportunity to go through it.

That's not a "right now" kind of investment, though. Won't need those anytime soon.

Thing is, any time you'd fighting someone that might go through a Webway portal, you want them to be stupid enough to do so, as then they'd be walked into a quarter sphere of pre-sighted powerful weapons all pointing at the gate. Baiting someone into chasing you through a choke point onto a prepared killing ground would be great. Particularly as you can have things like permanent fortifications with structure sized reactors, shieds and weapon systems not limited by the constraints that vehicles have, and can be freer using exotics as they're unlikely to be lost.

You could even have starship weaponry aimed at the gate.

Also, with temporary burrowings, they're temporary. When the force steps thorough you can let them evaporate behind them if you prefer. They don't leave an open gate or a tunnel behind. They're basically a better form of teleportation if you chose to use them like that.

The place I see for assault shuttles is boarding enemy voidcraft.
 
Last edited:
One thing that the craftworld eldar did not have is an assault ramp, which lets the unit disembark from the front of a vehicle and charge immediately.
would have been pretty fantastic with the howling banshees (and for positioning fire dragons)
Again, not something we need right now, but it would be cool.
 
One thing that the craftworld eldar did not have is an assault ramp, which lets the unit disembark from the front of a vehicle and charge immediately.
would have been pretty fantastic with the howling banshees (and for positioning fire dragons)
Again, not something we need right now, but it would be cool.

The reason they don't is probably the reason why real life APCs generally disembark from the back, which is that when bunched up together when dismounting is when you're most vulnerable to a burst of machine gun fire or an explosive of some kind taking you out, so you want the bulk of the vehicle between you and the man who might have their finger on the trigger.
 
Our current speeder chassis has an effective base of 10 slots, I think it's our version of a light vehicle.
The speeder is a bike variant rather a vehicle variant, based on its flavor text:
Speeders are effectively jetbikes enlarged enough to sport a modest cargo capacity or carry a handful of passengers
I think we have three bike-based chassis options right now:
Jetbike is an ultralight with just the 5 base slots
Heavy jetbike is an ultralight with 3 +engine options to bring it to 8 slots
Speeder is a light with the base 10 slots

It would be interesting to see the differences between a light bike and a light vehicle in terms of design options.
 
The thing with the assault transports?

They are the attached transports for our assault/cqc/melee forces.
Said forces are also for the most part be equipped with weapons that are focused on short range so open-top designs make not nearly as much sense for them.

So sealed attached transports with good armor in addition to a lot of defense make sense here.
It's just that the open-top design and the sealed one can pretty easily share one semi optimized chassis because they both like more armor on them.

For the people that said just use an assault shuttle have fun with creating the super heavy flier for that and use that as a normal battlefield transport for 1-3 assault troops that are inside a warhost.
 
Last edited:
The reason they don't is probably the reason why real life APCs generally disembark from the back, which is that when bunched up together when dismounting is when you're most vulnerable to a burst of machine gun fire or an explosive of some kind taking you out, so you want the bulk of the vehicle between you and the man who might have their finger on the trigger.
i don't see the problem at our tech level.
1) Use a holo field to become completely invisible
2) Mount some specialized shields to make those anti infantry weapons bounce off
3) Support your assault squad with vehicle mounted weapons. hell, just toss a bunch of screamer grenades.

That should buy enough time for disciplined assault troops to engage.

Moving around or under a grav vehicle is a worse choice, because you'll get shot even more.
 
i don't see the problem at our tech level.
1) Use a holo field to become completely invisible
2) Mount some specialized shields to make those anti infantry weapons bounce off
3) Support your assault squad with vehicle mounted weapons. hell, just toss a bunch of screamer grenades.

That should buy enough time for disciplined assault troops to engage.

Moving around or under a grav vehicle is a worse choice, because you'll get shot even more.

You are basically asking for the enemy to not get an action and for them to not have heavy/vehicle weaponry around.
 
Back
Top