Remove ads

Blood, Sweat, and Tears (WH40k Design Bureau)

Reader mode
Happerry said:
I don't really get this complaint? The AMMs to the patrol squadron are still the base AMMs, them being that shit is just a reason to phase them out from the main combat squads earlier then when I was intending when I misremembered them as actually having more modern parts? The Resolute-A is for the Naval Squadron, not for the patrol squadrons?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah I don't get the complaint either, they're glorified patrol cutters they're allowed to be shitty. Ability to cover space is more important.
jwolfe_beta said:
And if it requires that in the Imperium, we might simply not be able to make the things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
From what I understand, the listed cost is the installation cost for when we want to put the thing on a hull.

But yeah, Lances are pretty complicated, they're up there with plasma maco-batteries as tricky stuff. Still, I don't think we'll be completely unable to make them, I just think that like our other tech they'll simply be not as good.
 
jwolfe_beta said:
As for Lances, we're probably going to want to focus on a down-graded version because the baseline Imperium version apparently requires artisanal work:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing is, everything we have is a downgraded version of imperial standard. Our main macrocannon type is an upgraded merchant armament, our torpedoes are primitive and crappy, our home-built strike craft don't even have the proper fighter rule, we're using merchant warp drives and we only just got off using merchant engines and sensors directly as we can now make... upgraded merchant engines and upgraded merchant sensors!

Even our kill-bot cyborgs are essentially a knockoff version.
 
DaLintyGuy said:
True. Although basing the shells off of architecture around them gives reason to say that it would be a new module and not just an ammunition change as you would have to route high energy plasma into the containment system inside the shell in the chamber before firing, rather than have the fuel inside the casing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, before the generator starts up it's just going to be hydrogen in there, not plasma.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Sure, but that's not on the scale of "so we have a miniature star melting our hull from the inside..."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on how large the munition storage is. And how well the compartments are designed to handle internal explosions.
DaLintyGuy said:
It is arguable that factions would call the Indignant torpedo a primitive plasma torpedo, as it's "active" portion is a jet of superheated material whereas a default atomic warhead does damage by emitting heat and ionizing radiation at a target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure but all the descriptions of Imperial plasma warheads are to the tune of 'reactor specifically designed to explode that detonates on impact with target'. At lot more in the direction of HE munitions as compared to HEAT.

I'd simply figured that due to the high roll we'd inadvertently designed a weapon that gives more 'bang for the buck' even when using inferior explosives. I mean it even includes basic PD capability which is a lot more than any Imperium design.
 
Last edited:
Happerry said:
Is it more? I added the mention of PD to the write up because I can distinctly remember seeing mentions of normal torpedoes having some built in PD in them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm looking at the Lexicanum page for torpedoes, doesn't say anywhere that I can see about Torps packing PD, only that PD and interceptors are the only things able to reliably destroy them.
 
Happerry said:
I added the mention of PD to the write up because I can distinctly remember seeing mentions of normal torpedoes having some built in PD in them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I only have access to the lexicanum and warhammer40k.fandom off hand but I can't find any indication of PD capability mentioned in any of the articles.

Also Imperial targeting systems need work:
Seeking Torpedoes are special and rare Torpedoes of the Imperial Navy. Only a very few Forge Worlds maintain the capacity to manufacture the sophisticated guidance systems of a Seeking Torpedo. Torpedoes equipped with these systems employ adaptive cogitators and logic engines that continuously analyze their target's defensive actions, allowing them to not only automatically follow their target but also avoid defensive fire.

Despite these advantages, Seeking Torpedoes suffer from a habit of premature detonation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:confused:Why would the capability to follow a target and potentially avoid PD fire increase premature detonation chance?
Guided torpedoes are the second most common special type of Imperial torpedoes. Unlike regular torpedoes, they are telemetrically controlled from the carrier ship, allowing them to turn towards specific targets instead of moving blindly forward - an invaluable ability in battle.

These torpedoes suffer from one flaw, however: the tight beam communication systems. As advanced as they are, it is still possible to jam them, effectively disabling the type's advantage, or even interfere with them and give false instructions to the torpedo. At times, this results in it turning at the allied ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:facepalm: That is not how tight-beam communication/guidance works. You're sending a narrow coded beam etc to a receiver that is pointed back at you so you can adjust the direction of the projectile. As a result the best an opponent could do is flood the EM spectrum in hopes of garbling the message. And it would be a lot easier/energy efficient to simply shoot down the projectile.
 
jwolfe_beta said:
:confused:Why would the capability to follow a target and potentially avoid PD fire increase premature detonation chance?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Clever use of listen-mimic jamming to make the ship seem closer than it is during a chaotic sight picture. Or outright Space Magic.

The other I'll give you though. Except maybe if you can infect the guidance computer with a self actualizing virus/program given the computer is explicitly allowing received signals into it's control centers.
 
Last edited:
DaLintyGuy said:
The other I'll give you though. Except maybe if you can infect the guidance computer with a self actualizing virus/program given the computer is explicitly allowing received signals into it's control centers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes but if the torpedo is heading towards you, the receiver is opposite to you (pointing back at the ship that fired the torpedo). You would either need to somehow bend the counter-transmission while it's still in space or bounce it off something (moving because basicilly nothing in space is stationary) so that it hits the torpedo (which is also moving).
 
Given some of the crazier Mechanicus stuff out there, I can still see that being possible even when it's not outright warp based space magic hacking. And Chaos could definitely do some space magic warp hollywood hacking.

On an entirely different note though, none of the plans have any names for ships included. Anyone have any good ship name suggestions for whichever plan wins?
 
Happerry said:
On an entirely different note though, none of the plans have any names for ships included. Anyone have any good ship name suggestions for whichever plan wins?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
When in doubt crib from British ships.
EternalStruggle said:
But yeah, Lances are pretty complicated, they're up there with plasma maco-batteries as tricky stuff. Still, I don't think we'll be completely unable to make them, I just think that like our other tech they'll simply be not as good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On this matter, there's a fun little mention of a canon lance that we could take inspiration from when it comes to designing our own:
Las-burner: Scaled-down version of true lances, utilizing focused, high-power laser beams to cut through a ship's defenses. Though these weapons do far less damage then standard Lances, their size means smaller ships may carry them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Shorter ranged, less damage but no doubt easier to make and we'd potentially be able to add them as turrets instead of spinal weapons.
 
Last edited:
Happerry said:
On an entirely different note though, none of the plans have any names for ships included. Anyone have any good ship name suggestions for whichever plan wins?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was going to wait until I knew what ships were built, but I can spitball some, sure. These need not all be used immediately: "Righteous Temerity", "Avenger of Saints", "Crucible of Fury", "Herald of Vengeance", "Forsworn Hope", "Implacable Doom", "Last Appeal", "Erudite Mercy", "Traitor's Toll", "Laborious", "The Ardent" & "Sword of Calavar I"
 
jwolfe_beta said:
I mean it even includes basic PD capability which is a lot more than any Imperium design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that's probably a fuckup by overeager designers to be corrected in later iterations, it fucks with the performance and payload for minimal gain realistically. Well, in the long term at least. While some cogitator-guided autocannons might deter shitty Chaos craft or crappy Dakkajets they're not gonna do much more than annoy actual Fighta-Bommers or Swiftdeaths.
jwolfe_beta said:
Shorter ranged, less damage but no doubt easier to make and we'd potentially be able to add them as turrets instead of spinal weapons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, laser turrets is just the Sword's weaponry.
 
The Las-burner being referenced is a separate weapon type in Rogue Trader, not the Sunsear Laser Battery (which is the most optimal form of battery, generally speaking, in Rogue Trader). They have the special ability to add bonuses to boarding actions because they can be used with enough precision to cut openings into the enemy hull to allow easier access to the insides of an enemy ship, at least according to the fluff. Rules wise it's a +5 bonus to the opposed command test made to resolve boarding actions.

EternalStruggle said:
I mean, laser turrets are just the Sword's weaponry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depends on which battlefleet and which shipyard the Sword in question is from, really.
 
Last edited:
DaLintyGuy said:
I believe the main difference is that what he is referring to are continual beam weapons meant to cut apart hulls at very short range rather than more effective weapons that are pulsed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah the Sword's weaponry are functionally equivalent to macrocannons from what I can find. And heck, in Gothic Armada they are literally equipped with macro-cannon turrets.

As for the las-burner itself, I was using it as an example for a lance weapon that was smaller then the massive lances that could only be used as spinal weapons on our ships. I mean it's what, battlecruisers and up that you have any form of lance turrets as opposed to side-mounted or spinal forms of the weapon?

What I'd be suggesting in a lance weapon that while keeping the base properties of the design (high damage, low RoF, long range) but small enough that we can use it as a turret on ships that we can actually even think about building in the next century or three.
 
DaLintyGuy said:
That being said, I thought the Lunar had dorsal Turrets with lance weapons?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
-Doublechecks-
Nope, it's got prow torpedoes and then macrocannon + lance batteries on the side. No turrets from what I can tell and none of the variants/reuilds have dorsal turrets either.

Meanwhile the Gothic cruiser has Lance batteries on the sides and the prow torpedo launcher.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, it would be much less confusing if they just consistently referred to the broadsides as laser batteries instead of calling both them, the not much bigger turrets and the massive prow mount towers all by the term lance.
 
jwolfe_beta said:
-Doublechecks-
Nope, it's got prow torpedoes and then macrocannon and lance batteries on the side. No turrets from what I can tell and none of the variants/reuilds have dorsal turrets either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hm. And Eternal's lore post corroborates.

On the flipside, the Armageddon is a Lunar given lance Turrets, so it is possible to make a Cruiser with Dorsal weapons over broadsides.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top