I know I just talked about how we probably aren't going to sink that many Psy-Scopes into the Sword of Vaul but that doesn't mean we aren't going to use any.
I mean, I would expect that we want a fatesever PD for the ship. It could easily end up carrying more than a dozen megalances. Given the vessels size, 1800 fatebender scopes is a reasonable guess at how many it may take.
With that I mind it is probably a good idea to get a decent bank of Psy-Scopes first for when we do get the Sword of Vaul especially since we wouldn't be getting the giant Psy-Scope injection from refitting all our cruisers all at once.
Well we have something of a decent starting amount. What we get from cruisers would probably go towards refilling our stores in prep for SoV while our fighters spend from our stores initially.

The fact that this rule allows us to theoretically use super heavy tank detachments in ambushes is all the reason I need to pick all Warsingers for my vote.
Then your kind of not thinking thing through since Holo Fields already make Our superheavy tank good at ambushes. They can go invisible and just drop from the sky remember? Like, there is no reason to miss out on some of the available advanced tactics just to have some of our invisible forces be a tiny bit sneakier than the rest.
That is not something any of our other weapons can do.
None of our other weapons can auto disable fighters in our proximity either. We have a lot of very good at killing weapons which can disable, detonate, and vaporize the enemy. We only have one reality hax defense, and when it comes to which to prioritize between leveraging fatebender psyscopes, I'm going to choose defense. I'm willing to compromise and keep some on the Carrack for offense.
 
Last edited:
None of our other weapons can auto disable fighters in our proximity either. We have a lot of very good at killing weapons which can disable, detonate, and vaporize the enemy. We only have one reality hax defense, and when it comes to which to prioritize between leveraging fatebender psyscopes, I'm going to choose defense. I'm willing to compromise and keep some on the Carrack for offense.
Vehicle or superheavy scale missiles like what Zahr-Tann has can replicate the Fatesevers ability to deal with strikecraft to a lesser degree since they are guided weapons and strikecraft are nowhere near as tough as actual starships.

They don't have the reality hax of a Fatesever or Fatesheer but they are still guided weapons and with Melta payloads should be extremely lethal to the point where they wouldn't need reality hax to kill strikecraft.

What they no other weapon can do is replicate a Fatetwisters ability to screw with reality in order to hit otherwise obstructed systems like engines while ignoring PD/CIWB since unlike Fatetwisters guided missiles or torpedoes can be shot down midflight.
 
My thoughts on diplomatic priorities:

Kher-Ys and Muirgaythh don't actually need dedicated diplomacy actions immediately - we can dedicate time to their projects in a decade just as easily as right now, and both of those projects will likely span many decades each.

Rather, the risk is that they, uh, just kinda die during the next decade while they're still small and isolated... but just sending parts of our fleet, if we can spare them, to support them is something we can do just fine without a diplomacy action.

Stel'iy-Rann, we're already effectively locked into given our turn actions for this half-decade. Beyond that, any hope of actual rescue is probably extremely time-sensitive... though I personally don't really hold out much hope for that.

Instead, this is probably just going to be putting us in contact with the DEldar faster than otherwise... which still has quite a bit of value, if we allow the information about the mechanism of the Curses and about Isha surviving to spread among them. This is still before the DEldar consolidated into a single (awful) faction after all, so we may well be able to peel some of them into at least being semi-reasonable trade allies of our bloc. (Presumably not the ones who got Nacretinei, tho :V )

Lal'c-Tann is similarly time-sensitive, if we want to try to recover what we can from Terithillian before it is lost forever - at the outside, we might be lucky enough to salvage a second Forge of Vaul and a bunch of otherwise lost technological knowledge.

That said, salvaging a Major Craftworld's wreckage seems like the sort of thing that we'd want Vau-Vulkesh to be, uh, on-site for, so actually pulling stuff off there is likely to be delayed until we finish fixing our engines anyway.

I'll also say that I'm kinda leery of scrying for Terithillian until we get more Tzeentch curse mitigation done, too - Nacretinei is a much, much smaller deal than a Major Craftworld, so I'm less concerned about what we've done there.

Between those compounding factors, along with the fact that the Nacretinei search (and, potentially, sending some ships to look out after Kher-Ys and Muirgaythh) is already going to be eating hard into our resources, and I think I'm willing to let things lie for the next decade. We're certainly going to need to prioritize Terithillian within the next two or three decades, though.

Ulthwe is actually a very strong contender in my eyes - obviously, theirs is the least time-limited out of the offers, since Vau-Vulkesh is at far more risk than Ulthwe overall at the moment - but by the same token, even what to Ulthwe would be a minor token of appreciation would be sufficient to greatly shore up our position.

And, of course, having reasonable communications between craftworlds would be a massive force-multiplier in terms of the Diaspora's ability to actively collaborate on problems, conduct diplomacy, and generally solve issues.

Still, the lack of urgency does mean that we should probably delay it at least until the most immediately time-sensitive stuff gets handled.

Lal'c-Tann is a quick, simple, easy exchange that won't meaningfully take up our actions - and it's a relatively time-sensitive one too - if their fleets aren't repaired, they're gonna be in trouble. Fix their fleets, and they'll survive.

I'd also be inclined to spend some actions rebuilding their actual shipyards later on, once we can spare the effort - once they're in our alliance, those are shipyards that can churn out ships without using up our own action pool, to help protect Kher-Ys, or Muirgayth, or any other small and vulnerable alliance member.

Saim-Hann is a time-limited chance to curry favor with a major craftworld, while also gaining some combat experience with our new equipment and military setup in a non-critical situation where we'll have allies as a backstop.

As such, when it comes to diplomatic planning, I'm seeing something like:

Turn 5 - Stel'iy-Rann + Stel-Uit

Turn 6 - Create Diplomatic Council, use Scrying + Send Fleets to Kher-Ys and Muirgaythh to keep them safe, keep poking at Tzeentches Curse, build up military for Wyld Hunt

Turn 7 - Saim-Hann + Lal'c-Tann, with the remaining diplomatic slots either spent on continuing Stel'iy-Rann if needed, or on starting collaboration with Kher-Ys, Muirgaythh, and/or Ulthwe.
 
Vehicle or superheavy scale missiles like what Zahr-Tann has can replicate the Fatesevers ability to deal with strikecraft to a lesser degree since they are guided weapons and strikecraft are nowhere near as tough as actual starships.

They don't have the reality hax of a Fatesever or Fatesheer but they are still guided weapons and with Melta payloads should be extremely lethal to the point where they wouldn't need reality hax to kill strikecraft.

What they no other weapon can do is replicate a Fatetwisters ability to screw with reality in order to hit otherwise obstructed systems like engines while ignoring PD/CIWB since unlike Fatetwisters guided missiles or torpedoes can be shot down midflight.
Unfortunately we haven't developed missiles and we aren't going to have them as an option for the upcoming design phase so thats kind of an irrelevant point to be making. we are also unlikely to be spending WAP on another Carracks Design anytime soon.

I have stated a willingness to compromise and keep a weapon battery of fatetwister.
 
We need at least one cheap command option as a default because we won't be able to afford an expensive one en mass. We'll be building command structure from scratch, we'll need about 50 leaders just to backfill warhosts we have and a couple hundred when we really build up an army.
 
We need at least one cheap command option as a default because we won't be able to afford an expensive one en mass. We'll be building command structure from scratch, we'll need about 50 leaders just to backfill warhosts we have and a couple hundred when we really build up an army.
I think you have it a bit backwards. the ones that take the most time for are captains, people who lead at the squad level, and would likely be cheaper than a single Warhost leader. conversely while a track for the leaders are the shortest their likely to be the most expensive to field material wise.
 
We need at least one cheap command option as a default because we won't be able to afford an expensive one en mass. We'll be building command structure from scratch, we'll need about 50 leaders just to backfill warhosts we have and a couple hundred when we really build up an army.
Proposal:
[ ] Force Leader
[ ] Warsinger Captain
[ ] Warpriest
[ ] Warseer Commander
The Warseer is obvious.
The Warsinger, there's probably not much need for putting them on standard detachments en masse, but we're going to want them on troops doing Complicated, Important Shit, so it would be best if they were as good at it as possible.
Force Leader and Warpriest, we can easily put both in even basic detachments and benefit significantly, and the amount of detachments we have already is going to take shitloads, so it would be best if we started out with the easily mass-producible levels. I guess we could go with the 2-turners and hope we can make enough in parallel that the time isn't too much of an issue, but it's somewhat risky when we haven't seen either the deployment vote options or the AP costs. We're probably going to want to get upgraded versions of these pretty soon, or at least of the Force Leader, but we're not going to want to do it more than necessary considering Mechanis has said the more choices we have, the more getting new ones costs (Honestly, from a fluff perspective I'd personally prefer to not get the upgraded version of the Warpriest even later and leave them as just the cheap versions accompanying basic detachments to represent a more ground-level, personal, humble take on Khaine the Last Defender, but I recognise the mechanical benefits on the Warpriest template make that... unlikely to go through).
Also, worth pointing out,
You can add more and or better Leader Unit types later, yes... but that costs more AP the more types you already have. And competes with getting more advanced versions of your existing leader types.
somewhat implies there's going to be better versions of the leaders available in the future than we currently have access to.* Having better quality of the base versions is probably going to be important in unlocking those, and having to work our way up when each option taken makes others cost more would be painful. One of the reasons why I'm suggesting going straight to Warsinger Captain rather than starting with Warsinger Commander.

*Not exactly surprising, since even the 5-turners are only 25 years, which isn't very long for Eldar to GIT GUD. Not to mention that the turn lengths will be increasing later, and I expect that to shorten the number of turns for how long things will take, not lengthen the number of years for the same.

I think you have it a bit backwards. the ones that take the most time for are captains, people who lead at the squad level, and would likely be cheaper than a single Warhost leader. conversely while a track for the leaders are the shortest their likely to be the most expensive to field material wise.
???
What are you talking about? These are all the same kind of leader, the longer times and different names within each field of focus are just versions with stronger abilities (and presumably skills and so on). They are all used as the HQ for a Detachment or Warhost('s HQ Detachment), with one ability that applies to the Detachment they serve as HQ for, and one ability that applies to the whole Warhost if they are part of Warhost HQ.
We haven't yet had the vote that would determine their material costs
Also keep in mind there's a followup vote on how you chose to deploy things, so you can have, say, single commanders, mixed command squads, and homogonous squads (EG the Seer Council) from your available options; so choosing how exactly one deploys things can be a big deal.
, and we haven't yet seen the squad level leadership options
And, at least in the immediate sense, with other leadership options, like Squad Leaders, that you might want to invest in in the next few turns.
, but Captains ain't them.
 
Last edited:
So with the officers.

It really depends on how we build our detachments.

Are we going to fill out most of our slots ?

Are we going for some theoretical armored detachments ?

If we go for heavy detachments and potentially armored detachments with a lot of vehicles in it*.
Go for the low trainings time officers.

If you want to go for lots of light detachments and overall just spam a ton of cheap detachments without a lot of people in them or with good gear go for the low-cost ones.

*we are talking about potentially up to~200+ vehicles in a detachment if we go really heavy at which point sending 1 warhost to an area with one of them should be enough in a lot of cases
 
Citadel Carrocks
Equipment
- Swap 2 heavy weapons Slots for system slots
Weapon 6 naval slots
- 2 × Fatetwister Cannon Weapon Batteries
- 4 × Starlance Weapon Batteries
System 12/12 slots
- 3 × Æthersails
- 1 × Plasma Drive
- 1 × Suncannon Point Defense Weapon Battery
- 1 × Spike Cannon Close In Weapon Battery
- 1 × Holo Field
- 1 × Grav Shield
- 1 × Reinforcement

a compromise option that keeps two fatetwister cannons but gets rid of heavy weapons to compensate for lack of Fatesheer with plasma PD and spike weapon CI, with a smidge of reinforcement.
???
What are you talking about? These are all the same kind of leader, the longer times and different names within each field of focus are just versions with stronger abilities (and presumably skills and so on). They are all used as the HQ for a Detachment or Warhost('s HQ Detachment), with one ability that applies to the Detachment they serve as HQ for, and one ability that applies to the whole Warhost if they are part of Warhost HQ.
We haven't yet had the vote that would determine their material costs
no, their different leadership rank versions. training people down to the warhost, detachments, and squad leader ranks. Mechanis has alluded to "Rare Squad leader hero units" before.

the war priests is a little different from being a priesthood, but ultimately the other two that have more than a single option are moving down the chain of command.
 
Last edited:
with how small our army is likely to be, i really don't think we can skimp out on the quality of the brass. We currently have a lull in the danger level, so we should take our time.

We need our tiny army to work miracles punching above their weight, while minimizing losses. Leaders are force multipliers.

Which rules out the first tier of commanders, in my book. I would prefer we go for top quality across the board.
 
with how small our army is likely to be, i really don't think we can skimp out on the quality of the brass. We currently have a lull in the danger level, so we should take our time.

We need our tiny army to work miracles punching above their weight, while minimizing losses. Leaders are force multipliers.

Which rules out the first tier of commanders, in my book. I would prefer we go for top quality across the board.

We can kind of get the best of both worlds ("large" army and excellent leadership) by going heavy on the armor detachments.

With us now knowing that vehicles can be stuffed into squads that means we can adjust our detachment building with that.

Means we can build less overall detachments, but each one would be hold a lot of people in it.
Helps that this also has a lot of synergy with using currently having to use AP to recruit a detachment.

And yeah i also prefer high quality leadership.
 
If we're committing to best leadership, we'll have to organize our forces by that principle. We'll have cheap home defense militia (wgv+sunblasters+light ccw+krak grenades) with no leadership and cheapest transports possible just for strategic mobility and heavily mechanized expedionary core that's like 10x firepower and defense per warhost than average with best leadership and psyker support.
 
with how small our army is likely to be, i really don't think we can skimp out on the quality of the brass. We currently have a lull in the danger level, so we should take our time.

We need our tiny army to work miracles punching above their weight, while minimizing losses. Leaders are force multipliers.

Which rules out the first tier of commanders, in my book. I would prefer we go for top quality across the board.
our army isn't likely to be that small, except by the standards of other large craft worlds. it's just going to take a long time to get it built up.

We can kind of get the best of both worlds ("large" army and excellent leadership) by going heavy on the armor detachments.
umm. no. that's not really how it works. we can certainly make full of small detachments of vehicles in a heavy support role, but we aren't going to have a big army that way, whatever backwards logic you rap it in. even the cost of 2 VGW foundries a plasma rifles forge, and a EDBG Foundry produce equipment to arm more soldiers than 5 vehicle foundries can produce vehicles to fill those same spots.
 
Last edited:
Better to have many "good enough" commanders instead of too few excellent commanders

We can pretty easily adjust out detachments to use the excellent commanders.

Saying we won't have enough is quite wrong.

We run out of industrial capacity way before we run into officer problems if we don't massively fuck up our detachment building.

If we're committing to best leadership, we'll have to organize our forces by that principle. We'll have cheap home defense militia (wgv+sunblasters+light ccw+krak grenades) with no leadership and cheapest transports possible just for strategic mobility and heavily mechanized expedionary core that's like 10x firepower and defense per warhost than average with best leadership and psyker support.

We want our expedionary force already heavily mechaniced with some pretty high level of armored detachments in that.

umm. no. that's not really how it works. we can certainly make full of small detachments of vehicles in a heavy support role, but we aren't going to have a big army that way, whatever backwards logic you rap it in. even the cost of 2 VGW foundries a plasma rifles forge, and a EDBG Foundry produce equipment to arm more soldiers than 5 vehicle foundries can produce vehicles to fill those same spots.

Someone missed that most the slots are not a mechanical hard defined (only special is).
They most of them can be filled with vehicles and said vehicles can be in squads (up to 15 to my understanding).

That allows us to build very large detachments if we want to account for having highly skilled officers.

You are also not getting at all that with such detachments we don't care about having a large amount of detachments because we only need to send 1-2 warhost to almost anything that makes sense for us to send troops into.
 
Last edited:
You are also not getting at all that with such detachments we don't care about having a large amount of detachments because we only need to send 1-2 warhost to almost anything that makes sense for us to send troops into.
except the crone world raids the big five are engaging in, and I very much want to join those once we've had a century or two to work on our forces.
 
except the crone world raids the big five are engaging in, and I very much want to join those once we've had a century or two to work on our forces.

I am not sure what the fuck you plan on doing there, but it's not the place where you throw in forces with okish leadership and gear.

As is you look like you plan on throwing away the forces we managed to build up for no gain at all.
Whether that be an armored core with top of the line officers or masses of infantry with okish officers.
 
Turn 6 - Create Diplomatic Council, use Scrying + Send Fleets to Kher-Ys and Muirgaythh to keep them safe, keep poking at Tzeentches Curse, build up military for Wyld Hunt

Turn 7 - Saim-Hann + Lal'c-Tann, with the remaining diplomatic slots either spent on continuing Stel'iy-Rann if needed, or on starting collaboration with Kher-Ys, Muirgaythh, and/or Ulthwe.
I'd actually prefer to wait until Turn 7 to do Diplomatic Councils. We don't actually need them in order to get other Craftworlds into our orbit, so we don't need them yet. Mind you, once all the low hanging fruit has been plucked, we will almost certainly need them, which is why I don't want to delay things past Turn 7.
 
Doing things adhoc we seem to get one diplomatic action per AP spent, so honestly we might want to just throw every Steward AP into it next turn to clear out the time critical stuff, since building the permanent councils will mean a turn of no actions on that front.
 
Doing things adhoc we seem to get one diplomatic action per AP spent, so honestly we might want to just throw every Steward AP into it next turn to clear out the time critical stuff, since building the permanent councils will mean a turn of no actions on that front.
Depends on what other Stewardship actions get unlocked this turn. I don't think we will have 12 ap to pour into just diplomacy.

And so far, getting specialists and infrastructure has always been the better choice.

Doing diplomacy through stewardship actions is probably about as efficient as running our military with them.
 
I am not sure what the fuck you plan on doing there, but it's not the place where you throw in forces with okish leadership and gear.

As is you look like you plan on throwing away the forces we managed to build up for no gain at all.
Whether that be an armored core with top of the line officers or masses of infantry with okish officers.
I'm talking literally 20 to 35 turns down the line. you really think we can go that long without developing a few dozen highly elite warhosts? are paying attention at all to the short of shit on our to do list? go read a galactic shift again. we are 100% going to be part of Isha's rescue and if we can't scrape together something decent by year 1170 for far less ambitious ventures, we are fucking up some where.

yes, because we are so incapable of eventually making a heavily armored and equiped army. there is no chance of us ever not losing everyone if we ever willingly try our hands at a crone world, even if it's part of one of the major expeditions consisting of members of the 5 most powerful active craftworlds.

we know there is good loot on those worlds. it's just a matter of having the forces. if Beil tan can maintain expeditions on 5 lower danger crone worlds simultaneously 20 years after the fall, we can certainly build several thousand elites to tag along and score good loot after another 175.
 
Last edited:
Depends on what other Stewardship actions get unlocked this turn. I don't think we will have 12 ap to pour into just diplomacy.

And so far, getting specialists and infrastructure has always been the better choice.

Doing diplomacy through stewardship actions is probably about as efficient as running our military with them.

We don't need 12 AP on that only 5 after we take two of the options here.

So we have 7 AP to do other stuff in the steward section.


Edit:
So I would personally go with something like this if we aimed at building armored detachments more so if we plan on throwing out vehicles in squads even if they are small ones.

That gets pretty damn dense detachments that would need less overall leadership but benefits a lot from high quality officers.

Doesn't mean no Infantry just that most of the Infantry will likely all be elite with specialized roles/tasks.
+ A few detachments specialized in holding ground in cases we ever run into the situation we need to do so.

[] Core armored Leadership
-[ ] Force Commander
-[ ] Warsinger Captain
-[] Warlord
-[] Warseer Commander
 
Last edited:
[X] Vehicle Aesthetics : Default + Yranberry Symbol

[X] Plan done with this.
-[X] Force Leader
-[X] Warsinger Captain
-[X] Warlord
-[X] Warseer Commander

there. I literally put it into the plan name. I really wish this didn't feel necessary.

[X] Plan Stick with the Plan
-[X] Stel'iy-Rann | A Pearl Without Price
-[X] Stel-Uit | The Bladefleet

it outright says in galactic shift that it will be a while before Chaos is going to be in position to mount any major attacks, so the Adaptionists Kher'ys and Muirgaythh will be fine for several turns.

we couldn't put together two strong fleets for missing craft world long shot search missions if we wanted too, and we already have a lot of ships put aside for Naretinei search. best to wait on Lal'c-Tann.

we likely couldn't spare the seeker AP for Ulthwe this turn anyway, and we would want a chance to build some Carracks before we agree to the wild hunt as is.

let's keep votes separate for once. there is no reason to tie diplomacy to the outcome of burden of command, which is likely to be a more contentious vote, and there may be someone with an Idea for Air Racer Chassis that isn't just put Aerellian Lightningblade's least favorite fruit on it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top