Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
I admit the hammer is a specialist. a medium tank chassis designed for a heavy assault tank role.

but the morgana is aiming for a light tank with at best moderate flexibility. pairing up into a double gun medium tank is expensive for it as is going more than moderate investment in heavy weapons. it would be better to switch to a two vehicle grade weapon model for the purposes of being able to design a variety of moderately heavier combat roles without exorbitant slot exchange.

[X] Plan: Vau Wraith-class Multirole Chassis
-[x] Configuration : Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Type: Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL] (+17 EP, -2 SLT)
-[X] Maneuverability x1 (+1 EP)
-[X] Stability x2 (+2 EP)
-[X] Strength x2 (+2 EP, +4 SLT)
-[X] Power Plant: Psykrystal Capacitractor [EXPERIMENTAL] (+5 EP)
-[X] Basic Armor: Medium (+5 EP)
-[X] Enhanced Armor : Crew Compartment (+8 EP)
-[X] Weapons Mounts : Default
-[x] Crew Spaces : Fighting Compartment
-[X] Basic Defense : Refractor Field (+2 EP)
-[X] Defense System: Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL] (+11 EP, -1 SLT)
-[X] Defense System: Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] (+9 EP, -1 SLT)
-[X] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL] (+18 EP, -2 SLT)
-[X] Configuration: 2 Vehicle Weapon (-12 SLT) (10 Slots Remaining)
-[X] Total Cost: 80 EP

Redshirts model with the ability to pair up into an assault tank or tank killer cheaply rather than at cost, while still being able to play all the roles his version is suited for by putting heavy weapons in one of the vehicles slots. perfectly adaptable to a multitude of roles.

can anyone, anyone at all, explain why the leading chassis design is named after a human Chaos Witch???

edit: like narrative connotations actually matter in this setting.

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
 
Last edited:
Elf Tesserract Arc
-[] Configuration : Fully External
-[] Type : Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[] Enhance Payload x1
-[] Strength x3
-[] Stability x2
-[] Power Plant : Starlight Reactor [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[] Basic Armor : Heavy
-[] Enhanced Armor : Engine Assembly
-[] Enhanced Armor : Turrets/Casements
-[] Weapons Mounts : Casement
-[] Crew Spaces : Open Topped
-[] Basic Defense : Deflector Field [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[] Basic Defense : Refractor Field
-[] Defense System : Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[] Defense System : Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[] 1 Superheavy, 2 Vehicle, 4 System Slots

For maximum fluff adherence, should be limited to Grav and Plasma weapons. The weapons aren't really that big... They're just supercharged by the captive star being unleashed.

@RandomTechPriest: not a bad attempt...
 
Last edited:
MajorCringe said:
Honestly if we have the option I'd rather replace the holofield with chamoline plating. Tank drivers won't be using the holofield 90% of the time and can likely get by with it's less effective cousin.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I meant they're not using holo-fields 99.9% of the time, but when they do it's when they're running away from something that killed a tank. And at that moment you'd really want to have a real deal.
 
Ok so can someone identify the problems of the Hammer and Morgana chassis for me? Am I correct to believe that the issues are "Morgana's slots incur an EP tax whenever we convert them to a weapon/support attachment" and "Hammer is too slow and EP expensive to justify expenditure"?
 
Honestly, once we stick in the holo-field we're looking at a 5 EP armor anyway. We might as well just use VGW at that point, the savings aren't exactly incredible and it massively simplifies our logistics.

BigFungus26 said:
Am I correct to believe that the issues are "Morgana's slots incur an EP tax whenever we convert them to a weapon/support attachment" and "Hammer is too slow and EP expensive to justify expenditure"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Morgana incurs an EP tax for flexibility, and then sabotages that flexibility by building in a heavy mount that many designs would prefer to be half a vehicle mount. The Hammer buys heavy armor, which isn't particularly expensive but some people Do Not Want.

(The Extra Engine Hammer design spends ~30 EP buffing the tank's maneuverability that I'm not entirely sure is worth it over the other Hammer varients, and it is, admittedly, the leading Hammer design.)
Randino Treviani said:
can anyone, anyone at all, explain why the leading chassis design is named after a human Chaos Witch???
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I assume it's not named after the Chaos Witch but instead the same weather phenomenon the Chaos Witch is named after. We've named a few vehicles after weather already, and this is a vehicle with a built-in Holo-Field.
 
Last edited:
MajorCringe said:
Honestly if we have the option I'd rather replace the holofield with chamoline plating. Tank drivers won't be using the holofield 90% of the time and can likely get by with it's less effective cousin.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eldar without Holo-Fields, the Imperium without Space Marines, Orks without Warbosses and for our next trick will take Mechas away from the Tau!
 
Randino Treviani said:
can anyone, anyone at all, explain why the leading chassis design is named after a human Chaos Witch???
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A Fata Morgana is a weather phenomenon that causes misleading illusions, and I wanted to reflect the integration of the Holofield Projector in the name.

When it comes to including 2x Vehicle Weapon Mounts, I think Alectai's proposed variant works fine, and enough people have voted for my plan as-is that I'm feeling sketched out about editing it at this point.

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Multirole Chassis, Gravshield Variant
[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
 
Last edited:
BigFungus26 said:
Ok so can someone identify the problems of the Hammer and Morgana chassis for me? Am I correct to believe that the issues are "Morgana's slots incur an EP tax whenever we convert them to a weapon/support attachment" and "Hammer is too slow and EP expensive to justify expenditure"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
pretty much. the morgana is a decent generalist but set's itself up with a light tank armament and has to pay a bundle to pair up into something better.

their is also the established possibility of an enemy with resistance to certain munition. for example, an enemy tank that also has a refracted barrier generator weakening energy based weapons. having the ability to cheaply field a tank with two, different main weapons for those purposes is better.

my two vehicle weapon variation doesn't have those problems. it can serve as an assault tank or an standard tank with heavy weapons, or an medium armored anti infantry apc with multiple Heavy weapons, just by what we choose to put in the vehicle grade weapon slots, with no slot swap cost.

Alectai said:
And of course, everyone ignores the variant I presented (mumble grumble)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
sorry. chat moving fast and I didn't even see you post it. voting for it now.
 
Eh, Sticking with the grav-shield variant over the MBT variant, I want it to be more generalist, and system slots can ALWAYS be transformed into weapon slots if they aren't needed, As is, 1 Vehicle and 1 heavy are Perfectly Serviceable as the BASE of a design. That's AT MINIMUM, One anti-vehicle weapon and one anti-horde, and we will never be deploying that Minimum, with that in mind I would rather the system slots so we can use this chassis in more roles then just a MBT.

Hammer Doesn't have that Flexibility, Its a Heavy tank/MBT chassis through and through. You can change what the MBT is wielding, but that's it basically, and that lack of flexibility and any room for change or growth has turned me off of it.
 
You have my bow.

I honestly find myself in agreement with the new allocation of slots.

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

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis
 
BigFungus26 said:
Ok so can someone identify the problems of the Hammer and Morgana chassis for me? Am I correct to believe that the issues are "Morgana's slots incur an EP tax whenever we convert them to a weapon/support attachment" and "Hammer is too slow and EP expensive to justify expenditure"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
These are basically the only meaningful differences between the leading versions, in my opinion.
Good PointsBad Points
Fata MorganaAbout 10-15% less cost per unit, higher top speedCan't take multiple vehicle weapon hits before going down
HammerCan take multiple vehicle weapon hits before going downCosts about 10-15% more per unit, lower top speed
 
frostgiant said:
Eh, Sticking with the grav-shield variant over the MBT variant, I want it to be more generalist, and system slots can ALWAYS be transformed into weapon slots if they aren't needed,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
at great expense. this one is light generalist. it will always have an easier time being affordably made into lighter weapon roles than more weapon heavy ones.
Randino Treviani said:
-[X] Configuration: 2 Vehicle Weapon (-12 SLT) (10 Slots Remaining)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
this is generalist. the two vehicle slots can be used for vehicle or heavy weapons without a an increase in cost, and it still has enough slots for incorporating other technologies later, like a Haywire scrambler system, or other options I can't be bothered to list one by one.
 
BigFungus26 said:
Ok so can someone identify the problems of the Hammer and Morgana chassis for me? Am I correct to believe that the issues are "Morgana's slots incur an EP tax whenever we convert them to a weapon/support attachment" and "Hammer is too slow and EP expensive to justify expenditure"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Main points of difference is heavy armor (with consequences to speed and maneuverability) vs medium armor, weapon slots vs open slots, and about 15% difference in vehicle costs.

A smaller issue is an additional armor on crew compartment.

If you want a medium-heavy MBT then hammer is better, if you want a medium chassis that is more generalist Morgana is better. I, for one, don't see much use for generalist medium chassis that can't be just as well served by Hammer.
 
DarkLight140 said:
These are basically the only meaningful differences between the leading versions, in my opinion.
Good PointsBad Points
Fata MorganaAbout 10-15% less cost per unit, higher top speedCan't take multiple vehicle weapon hits before going down
HammerCan take multiple vehicle weapon hits before going downCosts about 10-15% more per unit, lower top speed
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm sorry, but what?

Holofields + Grav Shields + Medium Armor is not "Can't take multiple hits before going down", and you're completely dismissing Holofields making most direct fire weapons just straight up miss in the first place.
 
[X] Plan: Yvresse-Class MBT chassis.
-[X] Configuration : Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Plasma Drive [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] 2x Enhance Payload
-[X] 2x Stability
-[X] 2x Strength
-[X] 1x Speed
-[X] Psycrystal Capacitrator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Heavy Armour
-[X] Enhanced Armour: Crew Compartment
-[X] Default
-[X] Fighting Comparment
-[X] Refractor Field
-[X] Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Grav-Shield [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Energy Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] 2x Vehicle Weapon Slots, 1x Heavy Weapon Slot, 11 System slots

Taking inspiration from both the Hammer and the Morgana chassis designs, the Yvresse is my attempt to try and combine the flexibility of the Morgana with the additional armour and crew survivability of the Hammer without impacting our top speed or maneuverability too much, and how I'm trying to do that is basically reorganizing the enhancements to the grav-propulsion and some general shaboingery that took way too long for me to figure out at this ungodly hour.

All of this combined together and using the Capicitrator means that the grand total slots we can sling around afterwards is a nice and healthy 12 slots, however, I haven't been keeping track of the EP expenditure on this so it might be a little more expensive than either, but it will solve the issues of both chassis (not enough slots for the Hammer, and less crew survivability for the Morgana)

Though to be fair, EP expenditure is not our concern as long as we build the foundries for the tanks ASAP

how's this? @Alectai @Skjadir

Also to keep my vote:

[X] Plan: Fata Morgana-class Medium Battle Tank Chassis

Base slots 24
24 - 6 (engines) + 8 (enhance payload) + 4 (Strength) - 1 - 2 - 12 - 3 - 1 = 11 slots
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
I'm sorry, but what?

Holofields + Grav Shields + Medium Armor is not "Can't take multiple hits before going down", and you're completely dismissing Holofields making most direct fire weapons just straight up miss in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going to have to support this. between refractors & medium armor this vessel could mostly shrug off half a dozen las cannon rounds to almost any part of it's chassis, and easily take twice that or more to the crew areas given there extra armor costs more than the rest of the vessel.

however it has a dispersion field barrier generator and grav shield incorporated, which means that that common las fire has to find the invisible or otherwise concealed vessel several times to down it's shield, and then use the narrow window to land multiple las cannon shots, all still mitigated, assuming our crew doesn't elect to just pull back and wait for the DFBG to reactivate.

this is what I'm talking about. the people who insist on needing as much defense as possible don't actually understand how well defensed every variation with all three integrated systems is. it's causing skewed views about the vessels vulnerability.
 
[X] Plan: Yvresse-Class MBT chassis.

This seems to nicely split the difference between saving cost on Weapon Slots and leaving enough System Slots. 2V 1H gives us lots of options. Enhanced Armor on the Crew Compartment is take it or leave it for me but otherwise exactly what I was hoping for.
 
Shots avoided, misdirected, displaced or absorbed by the shields are not hits, I think. Also we don't really know the effectiveness of the shields except that of Nettle. On tabletop they're not effective enough to make armor obsolete.

I'd say that heavy armor behind the shields is more valuable than by itself. If the only thing that can take you down is a very lucky shot that penetrates the shields during dense fire concentration then making it so that you'd need 4 lucky shots instead improves your survivability a lot.
 
Last edited:
Randino Treviani said:
I'm going to have to support this. between refractors & medium armor this vessel could mostly shrug off half a dozen las cannon rounds to almost any part of it's chassis, and easily take twice that or more to the crew areas given there extra armor costs more than the rest of the vessel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fata Morgana doesn't have the extra armor for the crew parts.
It's just pushed behind the main armor belt.

Also no Refractor fields on it either, but the hammer variant with the most votes does. They are using the Holo-Field, Grav Shield Conversion field combo.

Overall the not armoring up the crew parts and not using the Refractor field are a bit ??? to me because it's very cheap.
 
This plan focuses on creating an extremely durable tank capable of surviving against even large concentrations of enemy armor, with heavy armor and multiple layers of defense. While the default configuration is for a battle tank, by swapping 1 vehicle slot for 4 system slots the chassis can be made into a heavy IFV for our elite troops with 7 enclosed passenger slots.

[X] Plan Durable Grav-Tank
-[X] Configuration : Fully Recessed [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Type : Plasma Thruster [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Stability 2x
-[X] Speed
-[X] Maneuvering 2x
-[X] Power Plant : Psykrystal Capacitractor [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Basic Armor : Heavy
-[X] Weapons Mounts : Default
-[X] Crew Spaces : Fighting Compartment
-[X] Basic Defense : Refractor Field
-[X] Defense System : Holo-Field [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Defense System : Grav-Shield Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Defense System : Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator [EXPERIMENTAL]
-[X] Slots: 2 Vehicle Weapons, 1 Heavy Slot, 3 System Slots

Added Cost: 17 EP for plasma thruster, 5 EP for optimization, 5 EP for Psykrystal Capacitractor, 12 EP for heavy armor, 2 EP for Refractor field, 11 EP for Holofield, 18 EP for Grav-shield, 9 EP for Energy-Dispersion Barrier Generator. 79 EP total
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top