Remove ads

A Different Breed (Warhammer 29K)

Reader mode
So. As glorious as our new weaponry are, we do have a vote to do.

Alectai's previous build order is so:

[][BONESINGER][FORGE] Produce Wargear (5000 EP Worth)
--[] 450 Needle Carbines, 50 Starblaster Carbines, 100 Heavy Needlers, 50 Heavy Spike

I'd like to know what's the least critical bits of this to cut and fit in a Star Anvil Superheavy Tank, which would cost 1300 of that 5000 EP.
 
LOLROFL said:
@Mechanis how effective are Imploder and Amplifier weapons as PD weapons?

My read based on their respective descriptions indicate their attacks produce AoE fields and have comparable range and RoF to generic weapons of their size makes them sounds like they'd be better than las-weapons or Spikes but noticeably more expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Amplifiers are kinda meh by themselves in that role, but the real magic is in Imploders and Amplifiers in pairs. But, you know, that's spensy, and you could have "make flack wall with exploding black holes" instead for a similar price.
dgr11897 said:
As a thought about Grav thruster weapons, they probably combo real well with fatecasters. Normal guns fitting a bullet through a hole barely larger than it is on an angle to hit a critical component would be just about impossible. For fatecasters it's the norm.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The main issue is their respective diameters. Namely that Grav-thrusters have smaller ones.
gale said:
@Mechanis Gravity Blades can be scaled up into Navel in the future right? And if so, what else can be made that big that may be useful?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You can do power rams too. The Eldar just, y'now, don't, because ramming is for people that can't blast their foes into oblivion before they ever get close enough for that. (Technically you could also make a Force Ram but powering it would be a bit of a sticky wicket. Naturally Photep had one.) and you could make gigantic flamers, but do you really want to be the only people other than Orks to think that's a good idea?

Ancient One said:
@Mechanis

Are you sure you got the costs right for the new weapons? Some seem to be too small or high in places. Or maybe they were just lined up wrong. How is super heavy more expensive than ship weapons?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ship weapon costs are divided by 100 for "making math easier" reasons. No need to track all those extra zeros when figuring naval costs after all.
 
Good news is, we have the means to devised a bunch of Elite and Heavy Support squads. Not to mention more vehicles. So, I'd say it's time to start more designs/rationalizations, so we can start refitting/raising new detachments.
 
Karugus said:
All in all, while we naturally will want to still expand our arsenal I think we've got a great start to begin making a lot more vehicle designs. I know people like a Super Heavy Fusion Mortar carrier, but a Skimmer built around them sounds incredible. Likewise with a rapid response Singularity Projector Fast Attacker.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fusion mortar skimmers sound amazing for shoot and scoot, And the ability to mount Heavy weapon infantry in a open top skimmer also sounds hilarious as hell. All in all, we now can make some god-like shoot and scoot artillery. and we no longer have to have eyes on a target to kill it
 
Mechanis said:
you could make gigantic flamers, but do you really want to be the only people other than Orks to think that's a good idea?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I do in fact want vehicle and Superheavy scale flamers. We're fighting Orks and Biel tan, and against both foes a bigger flamer sounds useful. Biel tan because if you fill enough of an area with fire Holo fields won't stop you cooking alive. And against Orks for clearing out spores and the orkish ecosystem in general, or grouped up Orks.
 
For the gravity sheer blades, putting them on a Missile/rocket sounds great, Set them to split the atom and a missile with the Gravitic sheer essentially doesn't need a explosive payload, its turns the enemy atoms into the payload.
If those missiles can be fine tuned to do molecule cutting for a second, then switch to atom cutting, we could have hull piercing missiles that Nuke the inside of ships. Grav-sheer blade missiles sound MEAN.

Hell if we can't do that, We know that the gravity sheer can be build sword small, maake a rocket pod that fires a hundred sword sized gravity sheers and NUKE their hull like a Cluster bomb from hell.
 
Last edited:
Mechanis said:
Amplifier Bombard
The largest form of Amplifier weapons, Bombards—especially the massive "Grand" macro-weapons and even larger "Emperor" heavy macro-weapons—increase in both strength and area affected as their size increases. Even the smallest form, however, can crush the toughest targets under thirty or more times normal gravity.

Type: Superheavy | Naval | Heavy Naval
Equipment Points cost: 110 | 8 | 13
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Put this on a few Light Cruisers, have them eat Roks for breakfast. Glorious.
 
dgr11897 said:
So. The Super heavy Fusion mortar, I want a heavy grav vehicle that mounts 2, for artillery purposes. Also the super heavy vibration bombard sounds goddamn terrifying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we'd want to unlock Conversion Fields first before a twin superheavy Fusion Mortar artillery tank (or arty in general). One of the most common answers to artillery is your own artillery which Orks should have in spades and while Eldar normally don't field too much of that Biel Tan is kinda infamous for their Night and Void Spinner artillery tanks.

Artillery generally produces AoE attacks and neither Holo-Fields or Grav-Shields are particularly good against those kinds of attacks. As a superheavy artillery tank would probably attract a ton of attention from artillery since nothing else would normally be able to engage it Conversion Fields would probably be our best answer to counterbattery fire, especially if we can design ones which reduce the odds of the Conversion Fields exploding once overloaded.

Mechanis said:
Amplifiers are kinda meh by themselves in that role, but the real magic is in Imploders and Amplifiers in pairs. But, you know, that's spensy, and you could have "make flack wall with exploding black holes" instead for a similar price.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good point, now that I look at the description of the Point Singularity Projector their firing mechanism does kinda remind me of fused munitions if they were applied to the PD role.
 
Last edited:
dgr11897 said:
So. The Super heavy Fusion mortar, I want a heavy grav vehicle that mounts 2, for artillery purposes. Also the super heavy vibration bombard sounds goddamn terrifying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think I would prefer a Light-grav vehicle/grav barge design with two of of the vehicle grade fusion mortars to allow for more ubiquitous artillery, but a eventual super heavy design would be pretty great.
 
LOLROFL said:
I think we'd want to unlock Conversion Fields first before a twin superheavy Fusion Mortar artillery tank. One of the most common answers to artillery is your own artillery which Orks should have in spades and while Eldar normally don't field too much of that Biel Tan is kinda infamous for their Night and Void Spinner artillery tanks.

Artillery generally produces AoE attacks and neither Holo-Fields or Grav-Shields are particularly good against those kinds of attacks. As a superheavy artillery tank would probably attract a ton of attention from artillery since nothing else would normally be able to engage it Conversion Fields would probably be our best answer to counterbattery fire, especially if we can design ones which reduce the odds of the Conversion Fields exploding once overloaded.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

on the other hand, our vehicles have the BEST kind of protection already Built in. All of Our vehicles a fast as Hell, Hover and shouldn't need to set up for very long to fire those dual fusion mortars, Which makes it shoot and scoot (Fire a volley or 2, pack up and Leave) almost unmatched in the 40k universe. You can't hit something that is no longer their after all, and The usual way to tell if artillery is present is if it shoots you.

This becomes even worse for the enemy trying to counter battery if a Heavy Grav tank can fire those dual superheavy mortars on the move.

Yes, That means our superheavy artillery might have better shoot and scoot then most factions Mortar carriages.
 
Last edited:
So I'm thinking an artillery vehicle for sure next turn. Which do people think is better?

Thunderstorm Mortar Carrier
Light Grav-Vehicle
Defenses: 1 Holofield (18 EP)
Vehicle Weapons: 3 Fusion Mortars (96 EP)
Heavy Weapons: 1 Heavy Sunblaster (15 EP)

Thunderbolt Mortar Carrier
Light Grav-Vehicle
Defenses: 1 Holofield, 2 Grav-Shields (78 EP)
Vehicle Weapons: 2 Fusion Mortars (64 EP)

Three guns, or only two guns but heavy shielding instead of just the holofield? Spending more EP on defenses for the guns than the actual guns seems a little silly but I can see an argument for it. If three guns we've got a spare heavy weapon slot which I'm flexible on; if we can't scrape up the system slots for either another mortar or a grav-shield, and I figured we might as well use our other new plasma weapon so that we could use the new shinies while avoiding the need to spend Bonesinger AP on both plasma and grav. But we could put anything in there.
 
DarkLight140 said:
So I'm thinking an artillery vehicle for sure next turn. Which do people think is better?

Thunderstorm Mortar Carrier
Light Grav-Vehicle
Defenses: 1 Holofield (18 EP)
Vehicle Weapons: 3 Fusion Mortars (96 EP)
Heavy Weapons: 1 Heavy Sunblaster (15 EP)

Thunderbolt Mortar Carrier
Light Grav-Vehicle
Defenses: 1 Holofield, 2 Grav-Shields (78 EP)
Vehicle Weapons: 2 Fusion Mortars (64 EP)

Three guns, or only two guns but heavy shielding instead of just the holofield? Spending more EP on defenses for the guns than the actual guns seems a little silly but I can see an argument for it. If three guns we've got a spare heavy weapon slot which I'm flexible on; if we can't scrape up the system slots for either another mortar or a grav-shield, and I figured we might as well use our other new plasma weapon so that we could use the new shinies while avoiding the need to spend Bonesinger AP on both plasma and grav. But we could put anything in there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was playing around with the weapon designer app and I plugging in the fusion mortars values manually I came up with these designs (So the numbers might be wrong):
[x] Plan Example: grav barge artillery design
-[x] Chassis: Grav-Barge
-[x] Refund -2 Ranged Weapon slots for 1.0 SS
-[x] Refund -1 Heavy Weapon slots for 2.0 SS
-[x] Add 1 Vehicle Weapon slots, 6 SS
-[x] Add 2 Vehicle Weapon Fusion Mortar (64 EP, 0 Starcrystals, 0 Psy-Scopes)
-[x] Add 1 Ranged Weapon Starblaser Carbine (8 EP, 2 Starcrystals, 0 Psy-Scopes)
-[x] Add 1 Vehicle Holo-Field (18 EP, 2 SS)
-[x] Add 1 Vehicle Grav-Shield (30 EP, 3 SS)
-[x] Total gear costs: 120 EP, 2 Starcrystals, 0 Psy-Scopes
-[x] Total EP cost should be around 244.0 EP
-[x] SS: 11 spent out of 8 base + 3 refunded

[x] Plan Example-Artillery light grav vehicle
-[x] Chassis: Light Grav-Vehicle
-[x] Refund -1 Heavy Weapon slots for 2.0 SS
-[x] Add 1 Vehicle Weapon slots, 6 SS
-[x] Add 2 Vehicle Weapon Fusion Mortar (64 EP, 0 Starcrystals, 0 Psy-Scopes)
-[x] Add 1 Heavy Weapon Starcarver (30 EP, 8 Starcrystals, 0 Psy-Scopes)
-[x] Add 1 Vehicle Holo-Field (18 EP, 2 SS)
-[x] Add 2 Vehicle Grav-Shield (60 EP, 6 SS)
-[x] Total gear costs: 172 EP, 8 Starcrystals, 0 Psy-Scopes
-[x] Total EP cost should be around 315.0 EP
-[x] SS: 14 spent out of 12 base + 2 refunded
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think I like the dual fusion mortar/grav shield design but it might be a good idea to wait until we've got conversion shields as a tech to replace the second grav-shield to allow it to better survive artillery duels.

Also not sure if a starcarver/starblaster carbine would be a better secondary weapon in comparison to some of the new options.
 
Last edited:
A question @Mechanis , is it intentional that Implosion Hammers are actually cheaper than Power Mauls? Are they just straight up worse?
 
dgr11897 said:
I do in fact want vehicle and Superheavy scale flamers. We're fighting Orks and Biel tan, and against both foes a bigger flamer sounds useful. Biel tan because if you fill enough of an area with fire Holo fields won't stop you cooking alive. And against Orks for clearing out spores and the orkish ecosystem in general, or grouped up Orks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, wouldn't Biel Tan just shoot us from out of the range of the flames? They just wouldn't send their Melee in to stab us if we had those. You want AOE weapons with range. Unless your asking our infantry to try to charge Aeldari into Melee.

Which I think is a foolish prospect. They would just play keep a way.
 
Professor Vesca said:
I mean, wouldn't Biel Tan just shoot us from out of the range of the flames? They just wouldn't send their Melee in to stab us if we had those. You want AOE weapons with range. Unless your asking our infantry to try to charge Aeldari into Melee.

Which I think is a foolish prospect. They would just play keep a way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Vehicle and Superheavy. I want a grav tank with shields that can charge into the middle of Biel tan and cook them alive. I want a mobile fortress with the ability to turn an area near it into a toasty hell pocket that cooks anything that tries to cross it.
 
frostgiant said:
on the other hand, our vehicles have the BEST kind of protection already Built in. All of Our vehicles a fast as Hell, Hover and shouldn't need to set up for very long to fire those dual fusion mortars, Which makes it shoot and scoot (Fire a volley or 2, pack up and Leave) almost unmatched in the 40k universe. You can't hit something that is no longer their after all, and The usual way to tell if artillery is present is if it shoots you.

This becomes even worse for the enemy trying to counter battery if a Heavy Grav tank can fire those dual superheavy mortars on the move.

Yes, That means our superheavy artillery might have better shoot and scoot then most factions Mortar carriages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Grav-Shields would still be outright inferior to Conversion fields even with that taken into consideration.

If our artillery tanks are not expected to take constant fire like our actual tanks the risk of a Conversion Field overloading is much lower while their advantages over Grav-Shields are allowed to shine to their fullest since Grav-Shields don't offer much protection Vs AoE while Conversion Fields offer basically total protection until they overload.

The high volume and poor accuracy which characterizes the Orkish philosophy of moar dakka is well suited for countering our superior speed and maneuverability as it would ensure their shells are dispersed widely enough to still reach us even when we run away while their huge volume of fire means the entire area is saturated with enough shells to ensure at least some land close enough to do damage.

Biel Tan meanwhile could have their War Seers help correct their counterbattery fire by being able to scry for where our artillery is displacing to or at least get a general idea if our own War Seers are trying to counter theirs.
 
dgr11897 said:
Vehicle and Superheavy. I want a grav tank with shields that can charge into the middle of Biel tan and cook them alive. I want a mobile fortress with the ability to turn an area near it into a toasty hell pocket that cooks anything that tries to cross it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd say vibration weapons would be better for that, longer ranged while melting things inside their armour plus they come in super heavy size while flame weapons don't.
 
Candesce said:
Heavy's big enough to mount a Graviton Thruster Lance, but I'm not sure that would actually be a superior single-target weapon to the Sunblaster; more interestingly, a Heavy mount can carry a Sweeper, which seems likely to pair well with mortars.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sweepers do seem like they'd pair well with mortars, but I don't know that putting them on the same vehicle is the right way to pair them. The advantage of indirect artillery is that it's indirect, after all; what we'd want is something more like infantry pinning an area with sweepers and calling in mortar strikes on the units they have pinned, maximizing synergy between the weapons by letting the pinner and finisher be located in difference places. But that of course requires multiple units to effectively coordinate and our Peaceful people don't have much of a military tradition... though they'll never figure it out if we don't start trying.

A Slipspace Tree said:
I think I like the dual fusion mortar/grav shield design but it might be a good idea to wait until we've got conversion shields as a tech to replace the second grav-shield to allow it to better survive artillery duels.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's fair. Given how our different available defenses work it's reasonable to delay designs a bit until we can get the last of our defensive trifacta in place. Same for the proposed superheavy artillery that has been thrown around. A shame, since I do really want to get some artillery in the field as soon as possible... but waiting an extra five years to get a better unit that we'll be using for the next century or two is the right move.

Also not sure if a starcarver/starblaster carbine would be a better secondary weapon in comparison to some of the new options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm inclined to say that we should avoid using exotics as secondary or backup weapons that we're basically adding to units just to fill available slots or as just-in-case measures. Exotics should be placed where they're able to maximize their effectiveness by fulfilling the weapon's primary purpose.
 
Our artillery vehicles are going be grav vehicles that can go from 0-100kph easy, don't require any anchoring, and can ignore most terrain. Debating about the best defenses for counter battery fire is missing the entire point. It's one of the vehicles that will be least exposed to incoming fire and needs to by it's nature focus on putting out as much of it's firepower as possible.

The solution to 'what if there's hostile seers providing divination' should be- excellent the Fatecasters are going to earn their keep. And AoE artillery shells are a bad way to defeat an armored vehicle in the first place, we don't need to be delaying the development of our artillery arm out of some misguided demand to make it more resilient than our tanks. That's just counterproductive.
DarkLight140 said:
Thunderstorm Mortar Carrier
Light Grav-Vehicle
Defenses: 1 Holofield (18 EP)
Vehicle Weapons: 3 Fusion Mortars (96 EP)
Heavy Weapons: 1 Heavy Sunblaster (15 EP)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd actually favor a Skimmer so we can have Fast Attack SPGs but this is probably the sort of design I'd lean towards otherwise. It's built on a tank chassis, it's fast as hell, and it's got enough firepower direct or otherwise to make a very disproportionate impact.
frostgiant said:
Fusion mortar skimmers sound amazing for shoot and scoot, And the ability to mount Heavy weapon infantry in a open top skimmer also sounds hilarious as hell. All in all, we now can make some god-like shoot and scoot artillery. and we no longer have to have eyes on a target to kill it
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, not going to lie- having Fusion Mortar Ithilmar teams that ride around in a Mirage is really dumb and I'm here for it. Especially since they can be used as direct fire weapons too.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top