Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
For IG veterans:

Any model may replace their lasgun with a shotgun for +5 points.

Shotgun:
Str 10 AP 6 assault 2 hellstorm (the huge apoc flamer), Wall of DEATH, They Work Like That

Wall of DEATH: when firing overwatch weapons with a hellstorm template use the wall of death rule, but with D6 hits instead of D3.

They Work Like That: if an opponent (or potential opponent) ever complains that "shotguns don't work like that" one of their units suffers an unfortunate mishap. Randomly select one of your opponent's units and replace it with a piece of crater terrain, and then place Marbo (with a Shotgun) in the center of the crater. If you already have Marbo in your army this counts as an additional Marbo and overrules the normal limitation on unique characters. Sometimes the warp Just Works Like That.

Slight fix for ya

:edit:
While we're at it
Sniper Rifle
Range: Unlimited Str X AP1 Heavy 1
Special Rules: Headshot, Instant Death, Rending, Armorbane, Shred, Fleshbane, Twin-Linked, Ignores Cover, Master-Crafted, This is Real Life

Headshot
This model always hits on a 2+. This weapon always wounds on a 2+. For armor penetration purposes, this weapon has a Strength of 10. You may always allocate hits and wounds from this weapon and this ignores Look Out Sir!

This is Real Life
If an opponent (or potential opponent) ever complains that "sniper rifles don't work like that", every friendly model with a Sniper Rifle may make an out-of-sequence shooting attack except that the weapon is Heavy 5.

ah, ok then. Tis fine as it is.

IG Stub-Rifles

STR 4 AP 6 Assault 1

Assault 1 - because the weapon fires cased .50 cal rounds similar to the Heavy Stubber the weapon would be semi automatic not a rapid fire assault rifle.

the weapons would be interchangeable with lasguns

Eldar Sword of Vaul:

Fleshbane, Armorbane, +1WS, AP3

Essentially a witchblade but gives the wielder a boost to WS and an AP value many eldar wish their faseers had.

Additional 25pts

Imperial Guard

Bigger Gun

Strength 10, AP 2, Range 120', Heavy, Ordnance, Armorbane, Pinning, Fear, Hatred(naughty Bits)

This weapon may either be mounted on an Executioner chassis for an additional 100 points or carried by 50 guardsmen for 100 points. In the case of guardsmen carrying it, it is artillery. None of them may fire their weapons for the entire game, and they gain the slow and purposeful USR.

 xole wrote:
Imperial Guard

Bigger Gun

Strength 10, AP 2, Range 120', Heavy, Ordnance, Armorbane, Pinning, Fear, Hatred(naughty Bits)

This weapon may either be mounted on an Executioner chassis for an additional 100 points or carried by 50 guardsmen for 100 points. In the case of guardsmen carrying it, it is artillery. None of them may fire their weapons for the entire game, and they gain the slow and purposeful USR.

Don't D strength guns do the same thing but better?

Pulse-Energy Blade
[Range: -] [Str: User] [AP: 5] [Melee]

TheCustomLime wrote:

 xole wrote:
Imperial Guard

Bigger Gun

Strength 10, AP 2, Range 120', Heavy, Ordnance, Armorbane, Pinning, Fear, Hatred(naughty Bits)

This weapon may either be mounted on an Executioner chassis for an additional 100 points or carried by 50 guardsmen for 100 points. In the case of guardsmen carrying it, it is artillery. None of them may fire their weapons for the entire game, and they gain the slow and purposeful USR.

Don't D strength guns do the same thing but better?

A little better. The only significant difference is that Strength D doesn't allow cover saves and IDs everything. If we are doing apocalypse then I would make something different, like this.

Imperial Guard APOCALYPSE

God Damn It Why Did I Play This Game Cannon

Str D, AP 1, Range (Infinite), 120' blast, Assault 20d6, Troll Level Master,

Troll Level Master: This cannon may hit friendly models, as it is difficult not to unless playing by phone. You've simply stopped caring and want to inflict as much damage as possible to everyone everywhere. Additionally, any terrain touched by this cannon's blast is removed from the game, as are any reserves sitting on nearby tables that are hit by the blast. Note that this gun's damage is not limited to your battle. If the blast hits models in other battles, make them roll saves as well, and remove terrain as needed. This includes any of their models that are in reserves. Note that any special rules allowing models to come back after killed(such as reanimation protocols, or Saint Celestine's being a pigeon-person special rule) will not get to be used. The God Damn It Why Did I Play This Game Cannon simply doesn't care. Models who's transports exploded as a result of this special rule must take 300d6 strength d ap- hits, because it would be funny. If, by some strange rules loop hole or other stupid thing like that, some models managed to survive this attack, the player who owns them automatically loses forever, and should be shunned by the rest of the local gaming community. This rule says it's perfectly ok, but check with your local police before taking more serious measures. In future, when thinking about playing apocalypse, roll a dice. on a d6 roll of 1+ do not play apocalypse. You're going to play apocalypse anyways, of course, but hey, now you're breaking the rules. You cheater.

A roll of a 1 is always a fail, even on a 1+ roll.... Just though I would point that out.

No, a 1 is only always a failure in a few specific instances. Like rolling to wound.

rolling a 1 to penetrate a vehicle is not always a failure. A railgun automatically penetrates AV10 because it will always roll higher than the armor value.

=Tau=
Megalodon Railgun Slug
Rng 144" Str 10 Ap 1 Heavy 1 Lance, Melta, Armour Bane
Ignores line of sight with a markerlight use. Ignores cover saves/boosts granted by terrain. (That should be about right while still being 'balanced' to an imbalanced game)

To counter infantry threats, the 'Blue Whale' shot was designed to launch a cluster of smaller railgun spikes bound together with a charge in between. The charge would be programmed to detonate at a certain distance from the muzzle a split second before firing and force the cluster to scatter out like a shotgun blast from that point.

'Blue Whale' Submunition Round
Rng 144" Str 7 Ap 2 Heavy 1 Flesh bane, Strikedown
Draw a straight line from the barrel, this is the shots vector. Then pick a point along that line and start the narrow end of the flame template there with the templates lengthwise axis along the line and the wider end of the template further from the firer than the narrow end. Roll 2d6, on a 7 the round releases at the correct distance from the barrel and the attack resolves as it stands. If you roll higher than 7 the round has gone off too late and the template drifts further away from the firer along the vector 1" per point over 7. If you roll under 7, the round has gone off too early and it drifts back towards the firer along the vector 1" per point under 7. On a double 1 or double 6 however, the round has failed to go to secondary firing, and the attack fails and is wasted. This attack can only be used against Ground and Skimmer type units. (This gives an alternate, but nightmarish to resolve, twist on scatter for purposes of game design that has good counter-play and luck factors. Was a neat thought, not good though. Interesting to note: If you declared the shot went to template at the muzzle and it drifted backward, the shot detonated inside the barrel and would in game destroy the gun, but I didn't write that in here)

More later!

Plasma carbine.

Scaled down version of the plasma gun, shorter range, higher rate of fire, weaker punch, no gets hot.

Str 4 AP 2 18'' Either Rapid Fire or Assault 3

20-25 pts for Stormtroopers

Hypersonic Wave Cannon
- Sonic weapon designed to shatter armoured bunkers

[Range: Hellstorm] [Str: 10] [AP: 1] [Ordnance 1, Armourbane, Torrent, No Cover]

IG

Heavy Autogun (SAW)
Range: 24"
Str.: 3
AP: -
Type: Assault 3

Veteran Squad
One Veteran may have:
- Heavy Autogun .................... 5points

 razor5647 wrote:
IG Stub-Rifles

STR 4 AP 6 Assault 1

Assault 1 - because the weapon fires cased .50 cal rounds similar to the Heavy Stubber the weapon would be semi automatic not a rapid fire assault rifle.

the weapons would be interchangeable with lasguns

This is interesting. Although, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be Heavy 1 since the rounds would be the same as a Heavy Stubber which is heavy. Also, the upgrade is free? Kinda like the shot-gun? I can see how this would push the squad towards staying at range, since at distance (longer than 12'') the gun would be better than a Las-gun, but when you come in that range the las-gun is putting out double the shots. I like it

Staff of Illuminating Reason

This is a wargear option for a Techmarine.

S: User AP: - Ignores Armor, Illuminating Reason

Illuminating Reason

Every time an enemy model that does something that breaks physics, you may hit them with the large hard-cover rulebook. This includes such nonsense as fielding walkers, firing railguns on a hovering chassis, and anything else that doesn't make any goddamn sense physically.

The Nerf Hammer:

S: x10
AP: 1
Attacks: + 1,000,000,000
Initiative: +10

Special Rules: Melta, Ordinance, Ignore EW
May only be used by matt ward armies.
______________________________________________

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
firing railguns on a hovering chassis

*smack with the Staff of Illuminating Reason*

This makes perfect sense, you just have to have the tank's engines compensate for the recoil. A Hammerhead will get kicked back a bit when it fires, but that's not a fatal problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
firing railguns on a hovering chassis

*smack with the Staff of Illuminating Reason*

This makes perfect sense, you just have to have the tank's engines compensate for the recoil. A Hammerhead will get kicked back a bit when it fires, but that's not a fatal problem.

If you have enough engine power to compensate for the recoil of the main gun, why don't you just put said power into a DEW main gun and have it be the same effectiveness as the railgun (because Newton's 3rd!) and more efficient (because it doesn't use solid ammo).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
firing railguns on a hovering chassis

*smack with the Staff of Illuminating Reason*

This makes perfect sense, you just have to have the tank's engines compensate for the recoil. A Hammerhead will get kicked back a bit when it fires, but that's not a fatal problem.

If you have enough engine power to compensate for the recoil of the main gun, why don't you just put said power into a DEW main gun and have it be the same effectiveness as the railgun (because Newton's 3rd!) and more efficient (because it doesn't use solid ammo).

While the laws will stay the same, this is assuming that Tau tech controls, feels, and acts the same way as 21st century engines and tech. For all we know it doesn't take a whole ton of power at all, or their engines are significantly better than ours will ever be. Who knows really.

Really, that is the answer to just about every question. We're talking tens of thousands of years in the future, and alien races, so trying to compare anything to modern day anything is a pretty trivial idea.

No.

 washout77 wrote:

While the laws will stay the same, this is assuming that Tau tech controls, feels, and acts the same way as 21st century engines and tech. For all we know it doesn't take a whole ton of power at all, or their engines are significantly better than ours will ever be. Who knows really.

Really, that is the answer to just about every question. We're talking tens of thousands of years in the future, and alien races, so trying to compare anything to modern day anything is a pretty trivial idea.

Tau tech could control and feel like an angry green squid with cats for eyes, but it will still act the same because, as you said yourself, the laws are the same. Technology is distinct from sorcery precisely because it acts in accordance with physical laws. Which means that, because of the incontrovertible truth of Newton's 3rd, it will take the same amount of energy to absorb the recoil as the recoil placed upon the chassis of the tank (provided we ignore the ultimately negligible contribution of air resistance). Their engine's being better doesn't change the fact that it still takes X power to resist X recoil force.

So rather than having to generate X power to fire a railgun's solid slug at said power, then having the engine generate X power again to compensate, you might as well just have the engine just generate X power in the first place and fire it as a DEW.

And we're talking 40,000 years in the future, and about alien races, but I am not comparing anything to modern day. I am applying basic laws of physics. I'm not saying "Abrams better because this" or whatever. Nothing modern has ever entered the discussion, except our incontrovertible understanding of the laws of physics.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So rather than having a railgun fire a solid slug at X power, then having the engine generate X power to compensate, you might as well just have the engine just generate X power in the first place and fire it as a DEW.

Err, no. There are many things wrong with that:

1) You ignore the factor of TIME. An effective weapon needs to apply all of its energy over a very short time, while it doesn't matter if the counter-thrust to the railgun's recoil takes a second or two. So simply having engines capable of X power output does not mean that you can put X into your gun and have an effective weapon.

2) You ignore the problem of energy conversion. For example, burning fuel in a rocket engine produces a lot of thrust, but you can't just take all of that energy and directly convert it to a laser shot. You'd have to add some kind of turbine to collect and use the exhaust gas, a generator to convert it to electricity, and finally the laser itself. And at each step of the process you're losing energy (since nothing can be 100% efficient) to waste heat, and then losing even more energy running a cooling system to keep your laser from melting. So merely having X power output from your engines doesn't mean that your laser could also have X power output.

3) You ignore the fact that armor penetration and damage are not just a simple "hit point" thing. For example, a laser weapon hits tank armor and immediately vaporizes some of it, creating a cloud around the impact point that absorbs some of the incoming energy from the rest of the shot. Or you might have armor that has excellent thermal absorption and radiation (great for stopping an attempt to melt through it with a laser) but is extremely brittle (terrible for stopping a solid projectile). So it's entirely possible to have a situation that favors physical projectiles over lasers, especially when you consider the ability to use submunitions/guided missiles/etc in addition to the solid anti-tank shot.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So rather than having a railgun fire a solid slug at X power, then having the engine generate X power to compensate, you might as well just have the engine just generate X power in the first place and fire it as a DEW.

Err, no. There are many things wrong with that:

1) You ignore the factor of TIME. An effective weapon needs to apply all of its energy over a very short time, while it doesn't matter if the counter-thrust to the railgun's recoil takes a second or two. So simply having engines capable of X power output does not mean that you can put X into your gun and have an effective weapon.

2) You ignore the problem of energy conversion. For example, burning fuel in a rocket engine produces a lot of thrust, but you can't just take all of that energy and directly convert it to a laser shot. You'd have to add some kind of turbine to collect and use the exhaust gas, a generator to convert it to electricity, and finally the laser itself. And at each step of the process you're losing energy (since nothing can be 100% efficient) to waste heat, and then losing even more energy running a cooling system to keep your laser from melting. So merely having X power output from your engines doesn't mean that your laser could also have X power output.

3) You ignore the fact that armor penetration and damage are not just a simple "hit point" thing. For example, a laser weapon hits tank armor and immediately vaporizes some of it, creating a cloud around the impact point that absorbs some of the incoming energy from the rest of the shot. Or you might have armor that has excellent thermal absorption and radiation (great for stopping an attempt to melt through it with a laser) but is extremely brittle (terrible for stopping a solid projectile). So it's entirely possible to have a situation that favors physical projectiles over lasers, especially when you consider the ability to use submunitions/guided missiles/etc in addition to the solid anti-tank shot.

1) Lasers can be pulsed - and it does matter, because two seconds of 25 m/s^2 acceleration moves you quite far!

2)This is true - however, a railgun already draws power from the generator and utilizes electromagnets. So it isn't like it's chemically fired or anything - there is already some way that the engine's power is being directed to the primary weapon system. Hell, the alternative option is an ion cannon!

3) what is "the rest of the shot" when you have a pulsed laser? And you might have armor that is like that, yes, while you might have sloped armor with ultra-dense core that is good at deflecting a solid projectile but does not disperse energy very well. And since most races use DEW as their primary antitank munitions (Imperium, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons), it's reasonable to conclude that such energy-dispersing armor is relatively uncommon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ADDENDUM:

In fact, having done the calculations, I realized that 2 seconds is fething ridiculous with the recoil that a railgun puts out. You would slide backwards over 100 meters!

Calculations use the current US railgun design specs (35MJ muzzle energy) combined with tonnage of the hammerhead (24 tonnes) using E = .5m(v^2) to find a V of 54 meters per second - two seconds after firing, if nothing slows you down, your tank is going to be displaced by 108 meters!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) Lasers can be pulsed - and it does matter, because two seconds of 25 m/s^2 acceleration moves you quite far!

You missed the point here. What I'm saying is that a weapon needs to deliver a given amount of energy in a very short amount of time, while the engines don't. Recoil will kick the tank backwards instantly, but you don't need to have an equally-immediate spike of thrust. You can let the tank drift back as the shot is fired and use a softer "push" to slow the recoil and bring it back into position. So while both the shot and response will apply the same energy to the tank the engines will do it over a much longer period of time, meaning much lower power.

2)This is true - however, a railgun already draws power from the generator and utilizes electromagnets. So it isn't like it's chemically fired or anything - there is already some way that the engine's power is being directed to the primary weapon system. Hell, the alternative option is an ion cannon!

Right, but you can't just say X energy is X energy therefore laser. There are efficiency losses everywhere and it's quite possible that railgun delivers more firepower than an alternative laser Hammerhead.

3) what is "the rest of the shot" when you have a pulsed laser?

Pulses aren't instant, and if you have a very rapid pulse cycle each shot is landing in the same spot as the previous one (otherwise you suck at penetrating armor since each pulse hits fresh armor). Lasers have a real problem with the vaporized material absorbing incoming energy.

And since most races use DEW as their primary antitank munitions (Imperium, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons), it's reasonable to conclude that such energy-dispersing armor is relatively uncommon.

That's completely backwards! If most armies use DEW as their primary anti-tank weapons then armor should be focused on dispersing that kind of attack, not vulnerable to it.

Calculations use the current US railgun design specs (35MJ muzzle energy) combined with tonnage of the hammerhead (24 tonnes) using E = .5m(v^2) to find a V of 54 meters per second - two seconds after firing, if nothing slows you down, your tank is going to be displaced by 108 meters!

Err, what? A railgun would have no more recoil than a conventional tank gun.

Also, you need to use conservation of momentum, not energy. If I'm getting the right numbers for the railgun you have in mind (2.5km/s, 10.5kg shot) the 24 ton Hammerhead would be kicked back at only 0.8m/s. For comparison, average walking speed is about 1.25m/s, so this is really not a big problem for the Hammerhead.

That also assumes the Hammerhead doesn't have any special recoil dampeners. Which it probably does.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) Lasers can be pulsed - and it does matter, because two seconds of 25 m/s^2 acceleration moves you quite far!

You missed the point here. What I'm saying is that a weapon needs to deliver a given amount of energy in a very short amount of time, while the engines don't. Recoil will kick the tank backwards instantly, but you don't need to have an equally-immediate spike of thrust. You can let the tank drift back as the shot is fired and use a softer "push" to slow the recoil and bring it back into position. So while both the shot and response will apply the same energy to the tank the engines will do it over a much longer period of time, meaning much lower power.

2)This is true - however, a railgun already draws power from the generator and utilizes electromagnets. So it isn't like it's chemically fired or anything - there is already some way that the engine's power is being directed to the primary weapon system. Hell, the alternative option is an ion cannon!

Right, but you can't just say X energy is X energy therefore laser. There are efficiency losses everywhere and it's quite possible that railgun delivers more firepower than an alternative laser Hammerhead.

3) what is "the rest of the shot" when you have a pulsed laser?

Pulses aren't instant, and if you have a very rapid pulse cycle each shot is landing in the same spot as the previous one (otherwise you suck at penetrating armor since each pulse hits fresh armor). Lasers have a real problem with the vaporized material absorbing incoming energy.

And since most races use DEW as their primary antitank munitions (Imperium, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons), it's reasonable to conclude that such energy-dispersing armor is relatively uncommon.

That's completely backwards! If most armies use DEW as their primary anti-tank weapons then armor should be focused on dispersing that kind of attack, not vulnerable to it.

Calculations use the current US railgun design specs (35MJ muzzle energy) combined with tonnage of the hammerhead (24 tonnes) using E = .5m(v^2) to find a V of 54 meters per second - two seconds after firing, if nothing slows you down, your tank is going to be displaced by 108 meters!

Err, what? A railgun would have no more recoil than a conventional tank gun.

Also, you need to use conservation of momentum, not energy. If I'm getting the right numbers for the railgun you have in mind (2.5km/s, 10.5kg shot) the 24 ton Hammerhead would be kicked back at only 0.8m/s. For comparison, average walking speed is about 1.25m/s, so this is really not a big problem for the Hammerhead.

Armor should be focused that way, but clearly isn't. Otherwise melta weapons wouldn't be the last word in armor-hunting engagements.

And it's quite possible that the railgun delivers more energy, but it's also quite possible that it doesn't.

A railgun of equivalent energy would have no more energy than a conventional tank gun, but railguns are so technically challenging that the only reason to use one is to increase your power beyond that available through chemical munitions so naturally it would be more powerful.

As for your calculations, p=mv is momentum. According to my windows calculator, you're a bit off, with the hammerhead's final velocity being 1.09 m/s, but your point stands.

I still maintain that it's silly not to just put the railgun on a grounded chassis so that it doesn't require any engine power at all to move back into position.


Also, as a final word: 10.5 kg projectile moving at 2.5 kps isn't really that impressive - honestly that's what I'd expect from a slightly more advanced chemically fired shell - modern ones go ~1800 m/s and weigh about half the proposed railgun shell.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Armor should be focused that way, but clearly isn't. Otherwise melta weapons wouldn't be the last word in armor-hunting engagements.

Not true. It's just as plausible that melta weapons have such overwhelming firepower that even armor designed to resist them is inadequate at close range.

And it's quite possible that the railgun delivers more energy, but it's also quite possible that it doesn't.

Except we see railgun Hammerheads but not laser Hammerheads (when taking on heavy tanks, the ion Hammerhead is a light vehicle/infantry killer). So unless your argument is "the Tau are stupid" there must be some advantage for the railgun.

A railgun of equivalent energy would have no more energy than a conventional tank gun, but railguns are so technically challenging that the only reason to use one is to increase your power beyond that available through chemical munitions so naturally it would be more powerful.

And to make your ammunition lighter (no need to store bulky and heavy chemical propellant) and safer (no need to store dangerous explosives). If you can solve the barrel erosion problems a railgun is far superior to a conventional gun. In fact those are the reasons we're working on real-world railguns, not some magical extreme firepower increase.

I still maintain that it's silly not to just put the railgun on a grounded chassis so that it doesn't require any engine power at all to move back into position.

How is it silly? Putting it on a hovering tank is a HUGE difference in mobility, the advantages of being able to hover over rough terrain are far, far greater than the minor drawback of slight recoil problems that are easily corrected by your tank's engines. And landing a Hammerhead to give a stable firing platform makes no sense given the equally huge advantages of being able to fire on the move.

Also, as a final word: 10.5 kg projectile moving at 2.5 kps isn't really that impressive - honestly that's what I'd expect from a slightly more advanced chemically fired shell - modern ones go ~1800 m/s and weigh about half the proposed railgun shell.

Exactly. A modern shell is slower AND lighter. Therefore it will have much less energy and do much less damage to a target. And that's on top of the advantages of having solid shot ammunition instead of conventional rounds.

The reason the hover tank would exist is mobility. A little recoil from that hugely powerful gun is fine if you'll be moving afterwards anyway.

The tactic would be to fire the gun and immediatly relocate.


Moving a meter backwards would only matter if you hit something.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That also assumes the Hammerhead doesn't have any special recoil dampeners. Which it probably does.

This is why I brought up Alien tech. If the Tau have railguns on hover tanks, they most likely have the technology to negate the recoil and prevent that situation from happening.


Also, this is a thread on making wargear/weapons...how did this start?