Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
personally given the possibility of enemies resistant to a certain type of munitions we should definitely pass a chassis with at least two vehicles weapons. It let's us take a solid and energy weapon combo for enemies weak to one but resistant to the other.
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can see that the rest of your arguments have some points even if I disagree with them, but this is outright wrong, and accusing other players of engaging in undermining the spirit of the game via subtle vote relitigation is extremely rude. There is no attempt at relitigation going on here. The vehicle size vote went Medium, and the Hammer is not trying to be a heavy vehicle- if it was, it would be pouring a huge amount of resources into grabbing extra system slots. It's trying to be a medium vehicle with as much durability and punch packed into it as a medium will hold without pushing the limits of the chassis and the associated resource costs.

The Hammer is trying to be the very best medium-sized tank chassis that we can field on a reasonable budget, and it's doing that. When we try to build a heavy tank, you'll know.
 
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.

[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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am very intersted in its usefulness in support roles too.

I want to design a turret to stick on it that holds a scrambler field, or an anti-air cannon.
 
Alectai said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's you trying to, not for the first time, ascribe moral failings to people you don't agree with. Previous time you called disagreeing with you bullying, as far as I remember. I'm doing a main battle tank, and I want it slightly heavier than Leman Russ but in the same ballpark.
 
Alectai said:
"Point a Vehicle Scale Sweeper Field straight up, you now have a Literal Skybroom"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe if we can get giant dome scramblers or directional scramblers we can use that instead?

Also I appear to have voted for the wrong thing; correcting it now.

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
 
vsh said:
It's you trying to, not for the first time, ascribe moral failings to people you don't agree with. Previous time you called disagreeing with you bullying, as far as I remember. I'm doing a main battle tank, and I want it slightly heavier than Leman Russ but in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pretty much this.

I am also not sure why people look at the IoM guard forces and their let's loss a few million people + get most of our stuff destroyed is the best place to look for designs.

For the people that can't take said losses in the first place and that have numbers more comparable with what space marines bring to a fight.
 
Skjadir said:
Pretty much this.

I am also not sure why people look at the IoM guard forces and their let's loss a few million people + get most of our stuff destroyed is the best place to look for designs.

For the people that can't take said losses in the first place and that have numbers more comparable with what space marines bring to a fight.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Imperial Guard infantry are dog shit.

But their vehicles seem to be where they shine? Their Leman Russ tank seems to be especially tanky for what they spend, and this tank isnt meant to be getting into slugging matches with the enemy. Its meant to skirmish around the flanks and zip around blasting stuff. Its a useful chassis we can press into all sorts of roles, like anti air, tank hunter, MBT, SPG, artillery, engineering vehicle, a transport, an EW tank... the possibilities are endless.

So what we are building is something with armor at LEAST as good as a Leman Russ, but unlike a Leman Russ, isnt meant to be driven into the teeth of the enemy, though we can certainly do that if we need to.
 
Professor Vesca said:
like anti air, tank hunter, MBT, SPG, artillery, engineering vehicle, a transport, an EW tank... the possibilities are endless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The possibilities are not endless. There's a number of roles that can be just as well built on Hammer, battlefield taxi role that we won't use this platform for, superheavy SPG it's too small for and a few entirely hypothetical designs that are not guaranteed to be useful or possible.


Anti-air, MBT, artillery: will spend system slots on weapon slots, like Hammer
SPG: too small for superheavy guns, too big for vehicle sized. Won't work.
Engineering Vehicle: what do you mean by that? If it's like real life engineering vehicle, why do we need it when all our vehicles are VTOLs?
EW tank: for now the only prospect for that is Haywire weaponry and it will use weapon slots, like Hammer.
 
Last edited:
Professor Vesca said:
The Imperial Guard infantry are dog shit.

But their vehicles seem to be where they shine? Their Leman Russ tank seems to be especially tanky for what they spend, and this tank isnt meant to be getting into slugging matches with the enemy. Its meant to skirmish around the flanks and zip around blasting stuff. Its a useful chassis we can press into all sorts of roles, like anti air, tank hunter, MBT, SPG, artillery, engineering vehicle, a transport, an EW tank... the possibilities are endless.

So what we are building is something with armor at LEAST as good as a Leman Russ, but unlike a Leman Russ, isnt meant to be driven into the teeth of the enemy, though we can certainly do that if we need to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes and that is the problem.
Not meant to being able to drive into the teeth of the enemy for what is our main combat chassis that is pretty much intended to do just that as need feels like a fail on the design side.

We already got the backline stuff covered with the iteration of the light grav vehicle (that include the job as a battle taxi).
We don't need another version with just a bit more armor that pretty much does the same.
 
Last edited:
vsh said:
The possibilities are not endless. There's a number of roles that can be just as well built on Hammer, battlefield taxi role that we won't use this platform for, superheavy SPG it's too small for and a few entirely hypothetical designs that are not guaranteed to be useful or possible.


Anti-air, MBT, artillery: will spend system slots on weapon slots, like Hammer
SPG: too small for superheavy guns, too big for vehicle sized. Won't work.
Engineering Vehicle: what do you mean by that? If it's like real life engineering vehicle, why do we need it when all our vehicles are VTOLs?
EW tank: for now the only prospect for that is Haywire weaponry and it will use weapon slots, like Hammer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes but then we are talking about price point, speed, etc. That heavy armor has tradeoffs and a I simply do not think it is worth it.

Skjadir said:
Yes and that is the problem.
Not meant to being able to drive into the teeth of the enemy for what is our main combat chassis that is pretty much intended to do just that as need feels like a fail on the design side.

We already got the backline stuff covered with the iteration of the light grav vehicle (that include the job as a battle taxi).
We don't need another version with just a bit more armor that pretty much does the same.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This isnt a battle taxi. It *can be pressed* into service as a battle taxi, if we need an armored transport. But this is a base chassis that can be pressed into multiple different roles as needed. Its job is to be flexible. If we need AAA, it can do it, we can just quickly swap out its loadout for the job. If we need an engineering vehicle? It can do it. If we need a zippy gun? It can do it.

This chassis isnt meant to be a specialist. Its meant to fill any role we might need it to fill, which is what an MBT does.

Like the iterated light grav vehicle is like having a truck of a half-track. Its military grade, and its certainly flexible, but there was a reason that armored take-hunters, AAA, etc existed too. They also fill a niche in that these vehicles are capable of engaging in sustained conflict with less attrition. If our light-grav vehicles come under fire thats a problem, these are more sturdy and are purpose built.
 
Last edited:
In a reversion to the usual situation, my plan has only 1 vote. we could make vehicles of truly horrible power.

Have you heard of our lord and savior "light tank with a starblade" or his cousin, "light tank with three vehicle grade fusion mortars"?
 
Professor Vesca said:
This isnt a battle taxi. It *can be pressed* into service as a battle taxi, if we need an armored transport. But this is a base chassis that can be pressed into multiple different roles as needed. Its job is to be flexible. If we need AAA, it can do it, we can just quickly swap out its loadout for the job. If we need an engineering vehicle? It can do it. If we need a zippy gun? It can do it.

This chassis isnt meant to be a specialist. Its meant to fill any role we might need it to fill, which is what an MBT does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The hammer has plenty of flexibility as a Main Battle Tank which you know is the actual role.

It has good weapon load out capabilities.
That includes AA capabilities if needed.
Good defense that are layered, including boosted crew surviabiliy.
That is actually intended for intense combat.

Some system slots (4) available.

10+ free system slots is not flexibility it's not knowing what the fuck you what this to do adding a large EP costs to use it for anything.
 
Last edited:
Skjadir said:
The hammer has plenty of flexibility as a Main Battle Tank which you know is the actual role.

It has good weapon load out capabilities.
That includes AA capabilities if needed.
Good defense that are layered, including boosted crew surviabiliy.
That is actually intended for intense combat.

Some system slots (4) available.

10+ free system slots is not flexibility it's not knowing what the fuck you what this to do adding a large EP costs to use it for anything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And for each of the hammers, I can produce 2.5 Morgana or 1.75 Morgana variants.

Its three times the cost when this isnt our vehicle ithilmar. This is our vehicle void guard.
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
[X] Plan: Hammer-class Tank Chassis, extra engine v2

Both options are good to me honestly, expensive yes. But once the EXPERIMENTAL debuff goes away the price will eventually go down and with enough economies of scale that will lower the price even more
 
Professor Vesca said:
Yes but then we are talking about price point, speed, etc. That heavy armor has tradeoffs and a I simply do not think it is worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Price point is 10-15% different on the final vehicle, not that big a difference. Speed is an issue but it's still a faster and more maneuverable MBT than any of our typical enemies. Maybe wouldn't be able to chase/run away from Dark Eldars or Necrons, but that's it.
Professor Vesca said:
This chassis isnt meant to be a specialist. Its meant to fill any role we might need it to fill, which is what an MBT does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You want it to fill any role we might need to fill. I want the best cost-effective MBT and I think Hammer is better at this. I also think other roles you have in mind for it either can just as well be done on Hammer (artillery, anti-air), don't work well on either chassis (SPG), or don't make sense in the foreseeable future (engineering vehicle, EW wagon).


Professor Vesca said:
And for each of the hammers, I can produce 2.5 Morgana or 1.75 Morgana variants.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's just not true. Actual vehicles built on them will be like 300 EP vs 320 EP difference. Base chassis cost is not listed but should be around 100-ish EP, guns will cost between 100 and 200 EP depending on the guns.
 
Last edited:
vsh said:
Price point is 10-15% different on the final vehicle, not that big a difference. Speed is an issue but it's still a faster and more maneuverable MBT than any of our typical enemies. Maybe wouldn't be able to chase/run away from Dark Eldars or Necrons, but that's it.

You want it to fill any role we might need to fill. I want the best cost-effective MBT and I think Hammer is better at this. I also think other roles you have in mind for it either can just as well be done on Hammer (artillery, anti-air), don't work well on either chassis (SPG), or don't make sense in the foreseeable future (engineering vehicle, EW wagon).



That's just not true. Actual vehicles built on them will be like 300 EP vs 320 EP difference.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean I looked at the hammer v2 Skajdir put up and its 123 EP per chassis.

Morgana is 52 EP and Morgana Variant is 72 EP per chassis. Yes the price will go up once we kit these things out in the factory. But the cost per chassis must be factored in because that matters to for how many we can produce.
 
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
 
Last edited:
Professor Vesca said:
And for each of the hammers, I can produce 2.5 Morgana or 1.75 Morgana variants.

Its three times the cost when this isnt our vehicle ithilmar. This is our vehicle void guard.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No you can't, I am not sure if you looked at the actual production cost.

We are currently going with a base 100 EP medium chassis tax.

Here the math for that:

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

extra engine v2 which is one of the more expensive than the crew version for the same loadout is:
100medium chassis+122EP for modifications+30+40+30=322 EP

*still going with a 7 EP cost for converting system slot to weapon slots could

Professor Vesca said:
I mean I looked at the hammer v2 Skajdir put up and its 123 EP per chassis.

Morgana is 52 EP and Morgana Variant is 72 EP per chassis. Yes the price will go up once we kit these things out in the factory. But the cost per chassis must be factored in because that matters to for how many we can produce.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The EP cost we are paying here are for modifications of the base chassis price that both pay not the total price you pay, otherwise the light grav vehicle would be like ~5-10 EP.
 
Last edited:
Professor Vesca said:
I mean I looked at the hammer v2 Skajdir put up and its 123 EP per chassis.

Morgana is 52 EP and Morgana Variant is 72 EP per chassis. Yes the price will go up once we kit these things out in the factory. But the cost per chassis must be factored in because that matters to for how many we can produce.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not cost per chassis, it's additional cost added to unlisted base chassis cost that we estimate at about 100 EP, and when you add guns, total vehicle cost goes to 300-400 EP.
 
I'm curious as to why you seem to think every single slot needs to be filled on every single model we produce, and that anything that isn't a weapon is a waste of points and slots.

Also, seriously, "We're estimating the base frame costs 100 EP no matter what we do and all the price boosts are bolted on top of that", could you point out where it says that there's a 100 EP tax at the start of everything?
 
Last edited:
Skjadir said:
No you can't, I am not sure if you looked at the actual production cost.

We are currently going with a base 100 EP medium chassis tax.

Here the math for that:

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

extra engine v2 which is one of the more expensive than the crew version for the same loadout is:
100medium chassis+122EP for modifications+30+40+30=322 EP

*still going with a 7 EP cost for converting system slot to weapon slots could



The EP cost we are paying here are for modifications of the base chassis price that both pay not the total price you pay, otherwise the light grav vehicle would be like ~5-10 EP.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
vsh said:
It's not cost per chassis, it's additional cost added to unlisted base chassis cost that we estimate at about 100 EP, and when you add guns, total vehicle cost goes to 300-400 EP.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yall need to give me the bottom line cost. I dont need the math, I need the final cost at production for each of these chassis.

How else can you expect people to do a comparison if the cost is obscured in this way? Yall gave me a number and I am going off of that number. If you gave me the wrong number, or a number that isnt what I am paying at checkout for each chassis, thats on you.
 
But sure, let's play your game. I'm not going to add that magical "100 EP base cost" tax that you guys seem to have

Let me actually put together an actual design, absed on the information we have. Assuming every Experimental somehow goes perfectly well. Gimmie a moment.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top