Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
gale said:
Right I asked because I wasn't sure due to me asking about min mecha sized armor and I tried to ask if it was valid (in that we can do it or need to research it) and didn't get a response.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, past the Terminator Armor line there's not much room before you are talking about actual vehicles rather than Infantry, so.
A pretty good rule of thumb is "if the operator's limbs aren't in the suit's, it's probably a vehicle"
 
Mechanis said:
I mean, past the Terminator Armor line there's not much room before you are talking about actual vehicles rather than Infantry, so.
A pretty good rule of thumb is "if the operator's limbs aren't in the suit's, it's probably a vehicle"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So if we go that way, if we can that is. We become like thr Tau where our elites are vehicles like their mecha?
 
Alectai said:
Ithilmar is already virtually invincible, further protection is redundant.

Regeneration is important because we can potentially leverage that into a cheaper Active Defense for future ships. Sure, Grav-Shields and Holofields are a hell of a wombo-combo, but a single Conversion Shield is probably cheaper on the Systems slots, which opens up new possibilities.

EDIT: Oh yeah, it's Go Time

[X] Plan: Banging Out The Dents
-[X][Steward] Design a Detachment (2 AP)
-[X][Steward] Form and Function to Feed a World (3 AP)
-[X][Steward] Design a Frigate (4 AP)
-[X][Steward] Delve the Vaults (1 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Assess the damage to Vau-Vulkesh's engines (4 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Continue ship repair (1 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Begin refitting the Dragonships of Quilan (1 AP)
--[X][Bonesinger] Also offer Grav-shields (+1 AP)
-[X][Bonesinger] Refit an Escort (3 AP)
--[X][Bonesinger] 9x Damaged Lance Cutters to Nettle-class Escort Cutters
-[X][Bonesinger] Forge Actions
--[X][Bonesinger] 2x Wargear Production (10,000 EP, details TBD)
-[X][Seer] Present: Where are the Freebootas threatening Val-Terrine based
-[X][Seer] Future: What will be the strength of the next wave threatening Meros
-[X][Seer] The Flaw, The Curse, The Claim (5 AP)
-[X][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Grav-weapons (2 AP)
--[X][Seeker] Gravetic-Oscillator Weapons (+2 AP)
--[X][Seeker] Gravetic-Implosion Weapons (+2 AP)
-[X][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Plasma Blasters
--[X][Seeker] Power (+1 AP, +.5 turns)
--[X][Seeker] Range (+1 AP, +.5 Turns)
--[X][Seeker] Lower Cost (+3 AP, +2 Turns)
--[X][Seeker] Compromise: Safety (-2 AP, -2 Turns)
-[X][Seeker] Reverse-engineer Conversion Fields (2 AP/turn, 3 turns)
--[X][Seeker] Regeneration
-[X][Warrior] Muster a Fleet
--[X][Val-Terrine] 1x Combat Brig, 4x Battle Carracks, 8x Assault Ketches, 12x Lance Cutters
--[X][Val-Terrine] Deploy Hearthguard Iron Fist and 1st Heavy Militia
-[X][Warrior] Disband Detachment (4 AP)
--[X][Warrior] Militia Line Detachment x4
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Proposed wargear production numbers: 50 heavy flamers (300 EP), 50 heavy needlers (500 EP), 100 power-mauls (2000 EP), 128 Ithilmar Plate (2944 EP), 110 Void Guard Armor (660 EP), and 18 mirage hover-transports (3510 EP)

That should be enough to put us withing spitting distance of 8 Forgefire squads, 10 Brightswords, and most of 3 squads of Voidspears. There's still 86 EP left to spend, but I think that could go to maybe stuff like spears for the Voidspears or miscelaneous weapons. Obviously, this doesn't fully equip anybody but 18ish squads is 18ish squads!
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
Any issues here @Karugus ?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We should hold off on designing a new detachment with our Steward AP and design a vehicle at least once instead.

We want to have something we can convert all of our Needlestorms into and any detachment we make right now won't benefit from anything besides our Troops and Mirages. Next turn I figure we'll probably do some rationalizations but now we just need to make the vehicles so we can build them and refit units directly,

Personally, I'd hold off on our Engines in exchange for doing Meltas and other weapon systems as the sooner we have those in hand we'll be able to make more units that can actually leverage them and avoid overlapping roles/capability gaps (as is we have almost no weapons to give elite specialist troopers for instance- I'm hoping for a jumpjet Melta squad sooner than later) or new designs like the frigate. I would drop one of the engine inspections for Meltas and maybe grab the portable sensors for instance. In a perfect world I'd pick up torpedoes too but I understand my priorities are significantly more immediate than most.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
We should hold off on designing a new detachment with our Steward AP and design a vehicle at least once instead.

We want to have something we can convert all of our Needlestorms into and any detachment we make right now won't benefit from anything besides our Troops and Mirages. Next turn I figure we'll probably do some rationalizations but now we just need to make the vehicles so we can build them and refit units directly,

Personally, I'd hold off on our Engines in exchange for doing Meltas and other weapon systems as the dinner we have those in hand we'll be able to make more units that can actually leverage them and avoid overlapping roles/capability gaps (as is we have almost no weapons to give elite specialist troopers for instance- I'm hoping for a jumpjet Melta squad sooner than later) or new designs like the frigate. I would drop one of the engine inspections for Meltas and maybe grab the portable sensors for instance. In a perfect world I'd pick up torpedoes too but I understand my priorities are significantly more immediate than most.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Meltas and the other Bonesinger projects are ready to go the instant we invest the Bonesinger AP into them, that very turn, and I am very leery of remaining a sitting duck any longer than we have to. If we don't plan to use them this turn, there's no reason to rush it in particular, and if we're only getting a new Vehicle design, it'll be better to roll that out and then have some new Detachments to form.

I would like to design at least two detachments, but I can do a vehicle design for the Needlestorms easily, and that should give us enough to develop some usable Line Detachments ready to go in time. Are you alright with that?
 
Last edited:
Hey @Mechanis , just checking. Is it 2 AP per Gravity Weapon or is it "2 AP and then 2 AP for every specific iteration you want this cycle So with 6 AP you get 2 Gravity Weapon Variants?"

If that's the case, my plan's actually got room for one more.
 
Alectai said:
Hey @Mechanis , just checking. Is it 2 AP per Gravity Weapon or is it "2 AP and then 2 AP for every specific iteration you want this cycle So with 6 AP you get 2 Gravity Weapon Variants?"

If that's the case, my plan's actually got room for one more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's 2 AP per choice. So for one type it's only 2, for two types it's 4, and so on.
 
Got it! Adjusting.

EDIT: Done, I added Shear stuff to give us a high-end version for our future Elites, and I'm pretty sure at least one of these is going to give me my desired Gravity Mauls.

But as things stand, it looks like we're getting a variety of potent Gravity based weapons, and a very scary plasma gun researched this turn. Should be fun! Low Cost + High Power + High Range looks like it'll fill a powerful role for Void Guard equipped forces without breaking our bank to get there.
 
Last edited:
Alectai said:
Meltas and the other Bonesinger projects are ready to go the instant we invest the Bonesinger AP into them, that very turn, and I am very leery of remaining a sitting duck any longer than we have to. If we don't plan to use them this turn, there's no reason to rush it in particular, and if we're only getting a new Vehicle design, it'll be better to roll that out and then have some new Detachments to form.

I would like to design at least two detachments, but I can do a vehicle design for the Needlestorms easily, and that should give us enough to develop some usable Line Detachments ready to go in time. Are you alright with that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We need to rationalize any vehicle we produce into a role the turn after. Functionally any vehicle we design this turn can only see action in two turns. That's why I'm saying hold off any new detachments.

They won't be able to carry any of the new vehicles or equipment we design this turn because they won't be organized into actual units until we take their respective Rationalize actions the turn after (which if taken in tandem with design new detachments will probably allow us to integrate those units into new detachments.)

A new detachment now with your plan can't have modern fast attack, HQs, Elites, heavy support etc. the only thing it will have proper modern units of is troops and dedicated transports- in which case why waste the Steward AP when we can instead be filling those gaps with modern vehicles for refits. Any detachment made this turn is premature, depending on what design this turn we might be able to justify a detachment or two next turn. You can somewhat get around these things with refits immediately after- but at which point why are we not just refitting and modernizing existing detachments instead?

Edit: Your best bet if you want to make a detachment next turn is to put the AP designing one this time on new vehicles and Rationalize Fast Attack. One vehicle design slot can be a tank, the other a skimmer gunship or something. I'd love Meltas for a skimmer gunship and for the Ketch, but I know you're reluctant. This would save you steward AP on rationalizations next turn making it easier to afford to design two new detachments with less sacrifices.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
We need to rationalize any vehicle we produce into a role the turn after. Functionally any vehicle we design this turn can only see action in two turn. That's why I'm saying hold off any new detachments.

They won't be able to carry any of the new vehicles or equipment we design this turn because they won't be organized into actual units until we take their respective Rationalize actions the turn after (which if taken in tandem with design new detachments will probably allow us to integrate those units into new detachments.

A new detachment now with your plan can't have modern fast attack, HQs, Elites, heavy support etc. the only thing it will have proper modern units of is troops and dedicated transports- in which case why waste the Steward AP when we can instead be filling those gaps with modern vehicles for refits.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, I understand then.

Okay, what would you have me do with those 2 AP then? I can put them into Vault hunting I guess?
 
You could also use them for MORE vehicles- that's a "design as much as you are willing to spend points on" option this turn.
 
Last edited:
Karugus said:
A new detachment now with your plan can't have modern fast attack, HQs, Elites, heavy support etc. the only thing it will have proper modern units of is troops and dedicated transports- in which case why waste the Steward AP when we can instead be filling those gaps with modern vehicles for refits. Any detachment made this turn is premature, depending on what design this turn we might be able to justify a detachment or two next turn. You can somewhat get around these things with refits immediately after- but at which point why are we not just refitting and modernizing existing detachments instead?

Edit: Your best bet if you want to make a detachment next turn is to put the AP designing one this time on new vehicles and Rationalize Fast Attack. One vehicle design slot can be a tank, the other a skimmer gunship or something. I'd love Meltas for a skimmer gunship and for the Ketch, but I know you're reluctant. This would save you steward AP on rationalizations next turn making it easier to afford to design two new detachments with less sacrifices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'modern fast attack, HQ, elites, and heavy support' are probably putting our new detachments out around turn Five-Ish if you want to wait? Since we're holding off on doing any fast-attack or elites this turn, so they'd have to be done next turn(turn three), with Heavy Support the turn after that and maybe HQ the same turn as Heavy Support or the turn after? Then we need to do the rationalization, and then wait a turn to get something built.

I'd personally rather throw together a stopgap light formation soon, something that might not have a modern HQ and skips elites, heavy support, and fast attack entirely, though I recognize that's a very short formation without much in the way of depth or complexity. But if we want to face our rivals with anything other than our current sticks and pointed words, we kinda have to do that?
 
Mechanis said:
I mean, past the Terminator Armor line there's not much room before you are talking about actual vehicles rather than Infantry, so.
A pretty good rule of thumb is "if the operator's limbs aren't in the suit's, it's probably a vehicle"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is funny to me, because I was looking at the Nundams today, Who are kinda weirdly built (I like them tbh even if the leg placement doesn't hold up if they run) With their Hands that are outside with joysticks and the legs that are merged Into the Paragon warsuits legs. So The Paragon Warsuit Has Limbs Both In, AND out of the suit lmao

So does that make the Paragon warsuit a Half vehicle/ Half suit... It was Never a Nundam at all! The SOB stole the Paragon from Robotech!


In case anyone doesn't know what i'm talking about. I love them, They fall right into a sister of battle category I like to call "Jank ass shit we have to put up with because we aren't space marines"
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top