Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
vsh said:
medium armor is not good for a tank
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think medium armor is probably good enough for a light tank, especially since we're going to have other defensive systems on it. Heavy armor does come with those penalties to speed and maneuverability, which hurt on vehicles who're going to be trying to take shots from the flanks rather than face-to-face slugging matches.

But trying to be too flexible with this design when we've already got the iterated Light Grav Vehicle filling the role of a flexible chassis is a mistake, I agree.
 
vsh said:
I think Fata Morgana is not the right design - medium armor is not good for a tank, too many open slots makes it expensive to weaponize it, and the slots/armoring is wrong for a battle taxi. But if it wins, a silver lining is we'll probably be able to iterate it to a basic Hammer design, it's only really different in slots and armoring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mechanis said:
Medium armor can be found on the 'average' battle tank, such as the Imperium's Leman Russ tank,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are 9 slots free for future inventions. 3 could go for a second grav shield, and then you have 6 left for whatever. I can't imagine the tax for weaponizing slots is more than 10 ep per weapon slot.

In oldschool tabletop terms, medium armor is probably AV 12, while heavy is av 14.
 
Last edited:
IronFist said:
I can't imagine the tax for weaponizing slots is more than 10 ep per weapon slot.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It seems to have been more than that for the Razorwind jetbike design we're never going to actually build, now.

(It paid 21 to convert three system slots into a Heavy, to be clear. The rate might be better for converting system slots into vehicle mounts on a medium tank, but precedent says "not cheap.")
 
Last edited:
IronFist said:
There are 9 slots free for future inventions. 3 could go for a second grav shield, and then you have 6 left for whatever. I can't imagine the tax for weaponizing slots is more than 10 ep per weapon slot.

In oldschool tabletop terms, medium armor is probably AV 12, while heavy is av 14.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Slot conversion costs are a thing and will murder that vehicle compared to the hammer cost wise if it tries to even come close to the same weapon load outs.

They are high enough from what we have seen that you can pretty much double the cost of what ever you put into the converted slot, and you are likely on point for what you are now paying.

Edit:
lets take a look a the likely total cost for say 1 vehicle weapon 4 heavy weapons

100 medium chassis + 70 EP for modifications + 30 vehicle weapon + 40 (4xheavy needler) + 63*+30 (second grav shield)
total cost:333 EP

*assumption same cost as the razor -> 21x3 (works out to be around 7 EP per slot converted)
Edit2: was working with values Candesce gave will double check that.

extra engine v2 which is one of the more expensive than the crew version for the same loadout is:
100+122+30+40+30=322 EP
Being cheaper while including way better crew protection.
(uses the fact that 1 vehicle slot can take 2 heavy weapons)

Weapon slot conversion is not cheap at all, and building chassis to be flexible.
 
Last edited:
Candesce said:
It seems to have been more than that for the Razorwind jetbike design we're never going to actually build, now.

(It paid 21 to convert three system slots into a Heavy, to be clear. The rate might be better for converting system slots into vehicle mounts on a medium tank, but precedent says "not cheap.")
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the chassis is not free though.

It costs 50 EP, and it has 22 points worth of weapons, and the base jetbike costs 21. The tax for comverting 3 slots to a heavy weapon is therefore 7.

Edit: Huh... We have 2 values. 50 on the turn post, and 66 on the reference sheet.
@Mechanis: Which value is correct?
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, extra engine v2

[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, Starlight Reactor

[X] Plan: Yvresse-Class MBT chassis.

[X] Plan: Fata Wraith-class Multirole Chassis

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
 
Last edited:
vsh said:
I think Fata Morgana is not the right design - medium armor is not good for a tank, too many open slots makes it expensive to weaponize it, and the slots/armoring is wrong for a battle taxi. But if it wins, a silver lining is we'll probably be able to iterate it to a basic Hammer design, it's only really different in slots and armoring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

... It literally says that "Medium Armor is good for a tank" in the description, it's Leman Russ equivalent, which are notoriously tanky for their price point.

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant

The Hammer is just absolute crazytown though that pays a fortune per chassis and has little to no flex in its design. This is not our elite tank, this is the one we throw several of per squad, pricing it like an Elite Tank is madness. It's trying to sneakily relitigate the vehicle size vote by basically treating it as a Heavy Tank and building it accordingly, and that's not right.

A Fata Morgana is still a focused tank, but it's one that can be prepared for all kinds of roles. Need an MBT? Give it a Suncannon and a Spike Cannon. Need a Self Propelled Gun? Give it either a set of PSPs or Fusion Mortars. Need an infantry sweeper? Bring Heavy Needlers to the table and watch hilarity ensue.

This is a Standard Tank chassis, not an elite tank, not a heavy tank, this is the foundation that we use to build the tanks we deploy in numbers. Which means it needs to be a good foundation that allows for it to be fitted to multiple doctrines with ease.
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
The Hammer is just absolute crazytown though that pays a fortune per chassis and has little to no flex in its design. This is not our elite tank, this is the one we throw several of per squad, pricing it like an Elite Tank is madness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am not sure if you get it but your "flexibility" in the chassis means you end up with higher costs than the hammer because weapon slot conversion is nasty expensive.

More or less you end up you end up doubling the cost you pay for your weapons for no gain.
Just more expenses for no reason and no actual added flexibility.
 
Last edited:
Skjadir said:
I am not sure if you get it but your "flexibility" in the chassis means you end up with higher costs than the hammer because weapon slot conversion is nasty expensive.



Razor wind:
21 chassis cost
22 weapon
8 crew
- Cost 51
Conversion cost adds 15 -> 5 per slot.
total cost 66
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because you're completely ignoring non-weapon slots as System Slot options maybe?
 
Alectai said:
The Hammer is just absolute crazytown though that pays a fortune per chassis and has little to no flex in its design. This is not our elite tank, this is the one we throw several of per squad, pricing it like an Elite Tank is madness.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Leading one is expensive - though not as expensive as you're making it to be, the difference is about 10 or 15% of the total vehicle cost. Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, System Slots And Crew Armor Edition is pretty cheap. Probably cheaper than Fata Morgana in tank role would be after paying slot conversion tax. And it's a tank, it doesn't need flex in design. It needs guns and armor.

Alectai said:
... It literally says that "Medium Armor is good for a tank" in the description, it's Leman Russ equivalent, which are notoriously tanky for their price point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean we were just discussing that we usually fight 1 to 10 outnumbered, we need our tanks to be better than enemy,
 
vsh said:
Leading one is expensive - though not as expensive as you're making it to be, the difference is about 10 or 15% of the total vehicle cost. Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, System Slots And Crew Armor Edition is pretty cheap. Probably cheaper than Fata Morgana in tank role would be after paying slot conversion tax. And it's a tank, it doesn't need flex in design. It needs guns and armor.


I mean we were just discussing that we usually fight 1 to 10 outnumbered, we need our tanks to be better than enemy,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And they Are? Our tanks are flight capable, invisible, and can shrug off the occasional lucky hit that hits them, and even if you manage to somehow concentrate a hail of fire and oversaturate the shields, that just means you now have to contend with the armor.

But like, assuming that the only use of System Slots are to convert to weapons at a price is crazy.
 
Alectai said:
Because you're completely ignoring non-weapon slots as System Slot options maybe?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We already paid pretty much all the system slot options we can take in the chassis creation with the integration of the holo-field, grav shield and conversion field.

I am not sure what you what to use the system slots for other than weapons when we do not have any other options that don't include turning into transport in exchange for adding 60-70+ EP cost to pretty much all our main combat vehicles.

And even then Hammer still has 4 system slots free to use for stuff.
 
Last edited:
vsh said:
What do you need this flexibility for? What's the good option that is not putting 2 Vehicle sized turrets and sending it to fight?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Extra shield generators if we want something to be a front line spearhead, advanced sensors and communications equipment so they can better punch through interference, better forward armor plating...

Those are just the ones we already know should be on the table, and all would be useful at their main role, and wouldn't have that surcharge because This is what System Slots are made for.

There's zero point to System Slots as a thing if their only real purpose is to serve as a tax for more guns. The fact we didn't have many options can probably be nailed down to "You weren't doing militarized hulls before", or "You still have some introductory techs to work on first." Like, for instance, I'd be unsurprised if adding smoke launchers (Which were described as synergizing with Holofields, not being supplanted by them), only took System Slots, which gives us a nice Assault option. Or a grenade launcher in general for that matter.
 
Last edited:
IronFist said:
Edit: Huh... We have 2 values. 50 on the turn post, and 66 on the reference sheet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where are you getting the 50 from? I'm not seeing it anywhere.

21 for the jetbike, 24 for the guns, that's 45. We're paying 66, and we know that doesn't go into crew equipment; that's 21 points not accounted for, and all we know that they might have gone into is the slot conversion.
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant

Good enough for me. I admit, I am a bit worried about speed, We took a whole bunch of options that decrease the normal speed of an eldar vehicle, and nothing to really balance it out, So I am a bit worried that it will leave this chassis slow and sluggish for our operational tempo in comparison to the majority of not only our, but out allies forces. Having all the guns in the world is good, but if your not in the right place to take advantage of an off tempo enemy or use them, they aren't super useful.

All that being said, If this DOES prove a problem, we can always come back and iterate the Chassis in the future like we just did for the three other frames.
 
Last edited:
IronFist said:
In the accordion for the razorwind jetbike.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah. Ok.

5 points would be a much more reasonable rate for slot conversion, yes.

I'd still take issues with forcing the Heavy slot, given Vehicle slots can be split into two heavies with the only cost being they have to mount the same gun, but that would make converting the Fata Morgana into a functional tank much less expensive.
 
Candesce said:
Ah. Ok.

5 points would be a much more reasonable rate for slot conversion, yes.

I'd still take issues with forcing the Heavy slot, given Vehicle slots can be split into two heavies with the only cost being they have to mount the same gun, but that would make converting the Fata Morgana into a functional tank much less expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Still passes up on the crew armor that performance wise is free.
 
Alectai said:
Extra shield generators if we want something to be a front line spearhead, advanced sensors and communications equipment so they can better punch through interference, better forward armor plating...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, two options:
- a) make it better defended than baseline but still less defended than Hammer
- b) sensors
Also, Hammer has 4 slots where it can fit an extra shield, or sensors, or maybe even both.

Also, better armor plating on a particular part (which is going to improve it to Heavy for Fata Morgana, in line with Hammer's baseline armoring) is not bought by system slots as far as I understand? It's a part of design/iteration, no?
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant

The Hammer is too heavy.
 
frostgiant said:
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, extra engine v2
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, Starlight Reactor
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant

Good enough for me. I admit, I am a bit worried about speed, We took a whole bunch of options that decrease the normal speed of an eldar vehicle, and nothing to really balance it out, So I am a bit worried that it will leave this chassis slow and sluggish for our operational tempo in comparison to the majority of not only our, but out allies forces. Having all the guns in the world is good, but if your not in the right place to take advantage of an off tempo enemy or use them, they aren't super useful.

All that being said, If this DOES prove a problem, we can always come back and iterate the Chassis in the future like we just did for the three other frames.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fata Morgana took one, and then compensated for it with 2x maneuverability to compensate for the minor maneuverability and acceleration loss. Fata Morgana is fine, Hammer absolutely dumpstats speed though.
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant

Medium armor for an MBT chassis is good enough. We're not making a super heavy off this
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top