Remove ads

The Long Night Part One: Embers in the Dusk: A Planetary Governor Quest (43k) Complete Sequel Up

Investigate the Sea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 593 80.4%

  • No

    Votes: 145 19.6%
  • Total voters
    738
Reader mode
Echo 101 said:
Yes, It was the premier naval base and capital of the entire sector If I remember correctly. It stands to assume that they still have that infrastructure plus whatever psykers the Golden Legion can field.

@Durin

1. What do the Astartes know of Valinor?

2. Also does the Golden Legion tolerate psykers in their battle ranks?

I imagine if they fought that they should know whether or not they are present in combat roles. An if they are then theirs more than likely a civilian role they fulfill even if it just means being put in a cell until released for duty or something.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. that they are a standard Abomination Domain with a mix of all types of forces
2. yes
Shard said:
@Durin

1. What do we know about psyker prevalence in chaos-held worlds and daemon worlds?
2. Is the Imperial Trust's navy now greater than Valinor's before the storm?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. that there are more
2. yes but that is totally irelivent, is 13th century Frances military strength stronger then 4th century Romes, who cares
 
Shard said:
1. Inquisitors?
2. The Dark Eldar report from Fjol IV, as well as the Space Marine report.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1. Possibly now. In Glory and Death they did get in and out but theirs very limited that you can see except Cthulu.
2. DE never cared about details like how many mon-keigh shit ships once petty Imperium has. PLus I doubt the Astartes would know jack about a certain systems ship count unless their was a campaign they were apart of or something. It's just not in their domain to know that stuff without their being a good reason. SM keep to themselves mostly.

Ninja'd
 
Durin said:
could I have a votecount
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Vote tally:
##### 3.21
[X] Plan Enjou T83
No. of votes: 17
Enjou, Godzillaslayer10, Praetor98, runes, Shador, Derek58, SirHades2.0, Ruirk, Riggnarock, Pyrus42, Shard, cl20, HanEmpire, SilvCrest, Azgrin, DragonParadox, aledeth
[X] Plan Reynal T83
No. of votes: 8
Reynal, Nikandros, Darkcrest, Briefvoice, fasquardon, ShadowNic94, DkArthas, Valerian
[X] Plan Enjou T83
-[x] but spending time with Ridcully instead of Syr
No. of votes: 1
noliar

@Durin, I have a couple of questions:

1) Do we get bonus to investigation from my omake and Shifting Realities?
2) Can we make a hybrid of Baneblade and Fellblade when progressives prevail?
 
@Durin:
1) Can we get options to reverse-engineer the Baneblade and the Capitol Imperialis (if we still have it) next turn? So that we don't lose the STC tech, and to have some goodies to give to our allies without losing our DAoT advantage.
2) If we do get the options, will Tranth have to do the work or will the Collegia do automatic rolls for them too?
 
random_npc said:
the fellblade is essentially a bane blade with more advanced technology. A hybrid would be a halfway point and due to having access to so many DAOT designs, I think that's kind of how we are already building our baneblades.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A Fellblade is 10 times more expensive than a Baneblade. While due to shields and much higher speed, in many, but not all circumstances, a squadron of Fellblades can defeat 10 Baneblade squadrons, one Fellblade can't be in 10 different places, and 10 Baneblades can. Also 10 Baneblades will have firepower of about 5-7 Fellblades, which is good against orks or nids.
So maybe we can improve speed of Baneblades, since their slowness is their biggest downside.
EDIT: BTW, we don't build our own Baneblades. Some people think that we don't need them if we already have Fellblades.
 
Last edited:
HanEmpire said:
@Durin:
1) Can we get options to reverse-engineer the Baneblade and the Capitol Imperialis (if we still have it) next turn? So that we don't lose the STC tech, and to have some goodies to give to our allies without losing our DAoT advantage.
2) If we do get the options, will Tranth have to do the work or will the Collegia do automatic rolls for them too?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1. at some point
2. tranth
 
True Metal Power said:
A Fellblade is 10 times more expensive than a Baneblade. While due to shields and much higher speed, in many, but not all circumstances, a squadron of Fellblades can defeat 10 Baneblade squadrons, one Fellblade can't be in 10 different places, and 10 Baneblades can. Also 10 Baneblades will have firepower of about 5-7 Fellblades, which is good against orks or nids.
So maybe we can improve speed of Baneblades, since their slowness is their biggest downside.
EDIT: BTW, we don't build our own Baneblades. Some people think that we don't need them if we already have Fellblades.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
no 10 Banebladeshave the firepower and 2-3 Fellblades
 
@Durin: Do biometric dogtags work for non-humans? If so I think it might be a good idea to issue them to the Quartok and the Space Marines (suggest in any case for the latter). Never know where genestealers might pop up.
 
One disadvantage about Baneblades is that you can only concentrate so many baneblades, as well as transport so many.

Like the difference between a Delta Primaris and a couple hundred Minor Elite Battle Psykers.
 
Avernite military doctrine doesn't really work with massed slow vehicles, does it?

Particularly if you consider that one of our ideal matchups are positions where it's like a bridge or a pass and there's limits on how much military that can be applied at any one time.

Or with the possibility of flanking Fellblades. Slow militarial forces are anathmic to us.
 
Actually, you know, past a certain difference in quality, a small force can defeat an inferior force many times larger than itself, even more than might be considered from force multipliers alone.

Consider a tank that can move, say, 30 units per turn, attack range of 200 units and, say, 50 damage per hit and 200 HP. Versus 100 tanks that can move 10 units per turn, attack range of 100 units, 5 damage per hit and 50 HP.

Conventional analysis suggests that the 100 tanks would destroy the 1 tank in a straight matchup, but in practice the solo tank can kite the 100 tanks until they're all destroyed.
 
Shard said:
Actually, you know, past a certain difference in quality, a small force can defeat an inferior force many times larger than itself, even more than might be considered from force multipliers alone.

Consider a tank that can move, say, 30 units per turn, attack range of 200 units and, say, 50 damage per hit and 200 HP. Versus 100 tanks that can move 10 units per turn, attack range of 100 units, 5 damage per hit and 50 HP.

Conventional analysis suggests that the 100 tanks would destroy the 1 tank in a straight matchup, but in practice the solo tank can kite the 100 tanks until they're all destroyed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're getting focused on what is good for us not the Trust when Avernites have very different needs and capabilities, both skill wise and industrial.

The banebalde is perfect for Midgard, for us its not as big a deal.
 
Well, if 10 Baneblades only have firepower of 2-3 Fellblades and not of 5-7, than maybe we actually don't need to bother with them. At least with making more vanilla Baneblades, if we can use Fellblade systems to make them faster without making them too expensive, it would be great.
 
Fellblade is superheavy strike vehicle. Baneblade is a mobile fortress. Having them both is better than having only one type. Fellblades to crack the defenses and baneblades to advance the frontline in offensive scenarios, or baneblades holding the line and fellblades taking the weakest points and counter-striking in defensive scenarios.
 
vsh said:
Fellblade is superheavy strike vehicle. Baneblade is a mobile fortress. Having them both is better than having only one type. Fellblades to crack the defenses and baneblades to advance the frontline in offensive scenarios, or baneblades holding the line and fellblades taking the weakest points and counter-striking in defensive scenarios.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No they are both super heavy tanks made for the same purpose, just the Felblade is better while the Baneblade is cheaper.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top