So basically, a normal torpedo is cheaper, but you might need more of them in order to achieve the same effect as a single bomb-pumped torpedo? Or in simpler terms, you might need three torpedoes to mission-kill a ship that two bomb-pumped torpedoes can mission-kill, but both cost about the same to produce? With it being down to how bad you believe the target's point defence versus their shields will be, alongside if you believe that strikecraft will be more effective against more, but less protected or fewer but more protected torpedoes trying to get into range?
The difference is the attack method with the cost being incidental. A bomb pumped torpedo is equivalent to a Lance or Battery attack whereas a normal one is a Shield ignoring Ordnance. Against some foes it may be better, some it won't.
Somewhere in mid M40, so about 1500 years before the "normal" canon date of 999.M41 with the 13th Black Crusade, Third War of Armageddon and all the rest of it. The Tyranids in the form of Hive Fleet Behemoth and the Necrons in the form of attacking Sanctuary 101 won't show up for ages yet,
We don't know that Sanctuary 101 was the first time Necrons appeared and attacked, we only know that it was the first time there were survivors to identify them.
True, but that's a minor detail. It certainly implies they weren't around for absolute ages before then.
No. That is... Akin to mashing a battery of laser based cannon around your Farstrike. The bonus for bomb pumped lasers were admittedly looted from Ork charge beams using components like IN Laser weaponry (think how LEDs work but Bigger and Better) but you have a lot of very sensitive equipment near where you would be lighting off small nuclear devices.
I mean, bomb and reactor pumped lasers work off of the same principles. One is just reusable.
True. Though the point stands that a particle Lance and an Ork firing chamber do not have many overlapping features.
Alright, so it won't get the bonus. Would it still work?
Sure if that's what everyone wants but this was where my inspiration took me.
It also has the advantage that we can have both sides of the broadside share the same primary accelerator rings, with secondary accelerators coming form opposite sides of the right to the firing aperture.
That sounds like it would make aiming dreadfully complex. Redirecting particle beams (assuming you're using electromagnetic particle accelerators and not technobabble space magic) is about as hard as getting them up to speed in the first place.
We should go for plasma then that way when they break they'll take half the ship with them, a much better option wouldn't you agree?
In all honesty, my main issue with all of these is that they're so short. Most of the suggestions have gone into more detail then, say, 'we looked at the guns and then we made our own copy'. Hells, they're each only one line long. It's a good foundation for a suggestion, but they'd need some expanding on, at least in my opinion.
I would welcome the input, especially on the plasma one I couldn't think of much beyond "we got the idea from these guns we found".
Not really, just have the primary ring make the particles, through a series of vents and pipes, the particles would be funnelled to smaller secondary rings that store the particles like a magazine in an autogun. The secondary ring will be inside a turret so that it can be aimed and shot while the secondary ring's only function would be to hold the energetic particles and then vent it into th eaccelerator rails for it to be shot at the enemy.
Do you, uh, do you know how particle accelerators work? The smaller a ring is, the more power it takes to keep the particles moving at high speed. We're not using the main accelerator rings to produce exotic particles - the output is nanoscopic, and they tend to decay in moments anyway. We're using them to accelerate perfectly normal particles to high fractions of light speed and then shoot them at the enemy.
