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.

Baronlveagh

Master of the Forge Jurisian of the Black Templars chapter Fired a Nova Cannon from the Ordinatus vehicle Oberon in Helsreach, thusly killing the ork gargant "Godbreaker"

I'm also strugling to concieve how a nova cannon is weaker than a nuclear device. In [Cadian Blood[/i], "a sizeable chunk of the Terminus Est's Prow simply ceased to exist

Randomonioum wrote:
Its not that the books might be old, its that the RT books are FFG, not GW. And they have had a very liberal interpretation of the fluff in some cases...

GW says whatever FFG prints is canon, and GW rides FFG's fluff writers like they suspect the writers are trying to steal the setting. You would not believe the inane crap they throw fits over. (unfortunately, spelling, punctuation and grammar are not among them, as HBMC would probably be happy to mention if you ask him. That's his job.)

Sadly, I would say that FFG is higher than BL on the sliding scale of fluff.

A nova cannon is a completely different kind of weapon.

The Crusader wrote:Baronlveagh

Master of the Forge Jurisian of the Black Templars chapter Fired a Nova Cannon from the Ordinatus vehicle Oberon in Helsreach, thusly killing the ork gargant "Godbreaker"

Pretty much proving that the average SM wouldnt have one just lying around.
Also, that this particular shot was taken under exceptional circumstances, as the Ordinatus machines are used solely by the AdMech.

The Crusader wrote:Baronlveagh

Master of the Forge Jurisian of the Black Templars chapter Fired a Nova Cannon from the Ordinatus vehicle Oberon in Helsreach, thusly killing the ork gargant "Godbreaker"

I'm also strugling to concieve how a nova cannon is weaker than a nuclear device. In [Cadian Blood[/i], "a sizeable chunk of the Terminus Est's Prow simply ceased to exist

And...? Not having gotten Helreach yet, I can only postulate, but a volcano cannon, with a damage output far less then a nuke, can do the same thing. (BTW: that thing I posted a picture of *is* that Ordinatus, from Epic.)

What the master of the forge was doing with it, I have no idea. They're exclusively the property of the AdMech, who consider them even more precious than Titans.

As far as Terminus Est goes:



Might notice that the prow is pretty small, with the two forks of it being thin. You could sever a fork, and do relatively little damage, but still blow off a sizeable chunk of the prow.

It could also have been a Jovian Pattern Nova cannon, which is a much different beast from a standard Nova cannon. A Jovian Pattern nova cannon is a vortex weapon, and would have produced an effect similar ot what you seem to describe.

BaronIveagh wrote: krack missile.

Preds: current MBts would have a hard time with them, however, they'd die fast to infantry in close terrain and close air support.

Dreads: slow and slab sided, mbts would make quick work of them, but in theory even a stryker or a ATX-13/90 could kill one.

I'd say a modern MBT could wreck a Predator. Considering it doesn't have much more armor than a dreadnought, especially on the sides and rear. Only the front is sloped, the sides are nice and big, with glaring weak points around the sponsons. The area below the front manlet is a nice big shot trap as well. The predator is a 40k Pz V Panther, thick, sloped frontal armor, very weak sides, pop one track and hit em in the sides.

EmilCrane wrote:
I'd say a modern MBT could wreck a Predator. Considering it doesn't have much more armor than a dreadnought, especially on the sides and rear. Only the front is sloped, the sides are nice and big, with glaring weak points around the sponsons. The area below the front manlet is a nice big shot trap as well. The predator is a 40k Pz V Panther, thick, sloped frontal armor, very weak sides, pop one track and hit em in the sides.

No, the Pred doesn't have the same armor degradation issues as a modern MBT fitted with chobham. Further, lascannons would do a number on modern armor due to how modern composite armor works. If you look at the cutaway diagram from FW, the pred has fewer places that you could wreck it with well placed shot, your best odds are to track it and let the foot sloggers kill it.

And I would hope that a SM tank would have brains enough to use cover and not show you his sponson sides. That's just asking for trouble.

To rebut, yes, it's like a panther, but if you have ever tried to get a experience Pz V driver to show you his flanks, it's not as easy as it sounds.

Edit: the shot trap is good but it's also a double thick spot on the armor, and there's nothing behind it that would take out the tank. Same issue with the sponsons, if I read the diagram right. You'd wreck the sponson, but even if you penned, there's nothing mechanical right there to knock the tank out. Crew are farther forward and shielded from spalling from that spot. Where you'd need to aim is the aft portion of the turret, where the lascannons power feeds are, or hit the batteries, but you'd have to get an ass shot on the pred.

Oops sorry misquoted, it just says a sizeable chunk of the diseased ship simply ceased to exist. And I would thouroughly recommend Helsreach

Also I imagine that Predator MBT's would be able to operate for significantly longer than a modern equivalent, I think its something like 3-12 hours for an Abrams and 24-36 for a Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and such like

Still, a 120mm Smooth Bore will leave a very nasty dent. And if it fails, do a Tau: shoot a railgun at the damn thing.

Also, what would a Lascannon do to modern MBT armour?

The Crusader wrote:Oops sorry misquoted, it just says a sizeable chunk of the diseased ship simply ceased to exist. And I would thouroughly recommend Helsreach

Also I imagine that Predator MBT's would be able to operate for significantly longer than a modern equivalent, I think its something like 3-12 hours for an Abrams and 24-36 for a Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and such like

Still, easily explained by a hit from the vortex weapon variant, since that's hwo a vortex weapon does damage, it makes part of the ship go away without saves. Granted, I'm using 'crunch' for this, however, Terminus Est would have been destroyed entirely without a saveing throw, so to speak, by an atomic weapon (if used in boarding attack rather then a projectile) Fortunately, that whole 'Mark of Nurgle' thing prevents that.

The Imperium still classifies atomics as a exterminatus weapon. Nova cannons and lances are considered heavy support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IHateNids wrote:
Also, what would a Lascannon do to modern MBT armour?

Quite a bit. Remember that Chobham only works well against projectiles and explosions. While the ceramics and metal don't burn, the elastic backing can, depending on the date of manufacture.

But what does a Lascannon fire, because I doubt an army who's main firearm is a .75 Automatic magasine-wed RPG can have a weapon that fires pure energy

IHateNids wrote:But what does a Lascannon fire, because I doubt an army who's main firearm is a .75 Automatic magasine-wed RPG can have a weapon that fires pure energy

Guess your wrong then. It's a pure energy based weapon, just like lasguns.

M240B with armor piercing rounds, and a half descent gunner.

Ok, but what kind of damage would it do, because if it is not a projectile it can't be kinetic penetration. It cant be an Armour Piercing explosive because it is a laser, so it must be like a jet of pure heat which will melt right through, am I not wrong?

In theory, if he has his helmet off you can hit him in the eye with the humble cocktail stick. How embarrassing would that be for an 'angel of death'

IHateNids wrote:Ok, but what kind of damage would it do, because if it is not a projectile it can't be kinetic penetration. It cant be an Armour Piercing explosive because it is a laser, so it must be like a jet of pure heat which will melt right through, am I not wrong?

Ever see what a laser cutter does to sheet metal? Lascannon does that to the side of your tank.

IHateNids wrote:Ok, but what kind of damage would it do, because if it is not a projectile it can't be kinetic penetration. It cant be an Armour Piercing explosive because it is a laser, so it must be like a jet of pure heat which will melt right through, am I not wrong?

Well, yes and no, laser weapons in the 40k universe are a bit odd. Cause for some reason Las guns do knock people over just by being hit. So, TBH, I don't think real world physics entirely aply to las weapons.

This is how it's described in 3ed big book:

The lasgun uses the same basic technology and operates along the same lines as other las weapons, emitting a beam of focused light. The high amount of energy in the beam causes the immediate surface area of a target to be vaporized in a small explosion.

Ah, Ok.
At what range, cos I know an ex tank commander and he says tanks can accurately engage a target at 4 Km. Can a Lascannon?

No clue, haven't read anything on Lascannon range.

Well in theory in suppose a lascannon wouldnt really have a maximum range in the atmosphere other than what you can draw a bead on.
I doubt the atmosphere would reduce the power much of a beam that can blast through several inches of exoctic future tech armor so the beam would just keep going till it hits something or flies off into the upper atmosphere.

@ baronleavgh

I don't have access to those IA diagrams, so thanks for the info, I think in general our problem is the lack of consistent information available on the specs of 40k equipment

EmilCrane wrote:@ baronleavgh

I don't have access to those IA diagrams, so thanks for the info, I think in general our problem is the lack of consistent information available on the specs of 40k equipment

LOL Actually the problem is the lack of consistent information on 40k in general. You would not believe how space ships expand and contract.

EmilCrane wrote:@ baronleavgh

I don't have access to those IA diagrams, so thanks for the info, I think in general our problem is the lack of consistent information available on the specs of 40k equipment

There is very consistent information on 40k technology (gameplay mechanics). But, people tend to get upset by it, because it's very clear that the weapons used in 40k are really poor, and they don't like to face the fact that a modern military could absolutely crush anything 40k has to offer (apart from space combat).

Grakmar wrote:

EmilCrane wrote:@ baronleavgh

I don't have access to those IA diagrams, so thanks for the info, I think in general our problem is the lack of consistent information available on the specs of 40k equipment

There is very consistent information on 40k technology (gameplay mechanics). But, people tend to get upset by it, because it's very clear that the weapons used in 40k are really poor, and they don't like to face the fact that a modern military could absolutely crush anything 40k has to offer (apart from space combat).

That's. . . not actually why people don't like to use gameplay mechanics. People don't use gameplay mechanics because they are radically inconsistent with the fluff. A game has to be balanced for gameplay. That does mean that, often, the conclusions one would draw from the way the game plays flatly contradict what is stated as fact in the background material.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

EmilCrane wrote:@ baronleavgh

I don't have access to those IA diagrams, so thanks for the info, I think in general our problem is the lack of consistent information available on the specs of 40k equipment

There is very consistent information on 40k technology (gameplay mechanics). But, people tend to get upset by it, because it's very clear that the weapons used in 40k are really poor, and they don't like to face the fact that a modern military could absolutely crush anything 40k has to offer (apart from space combat).

That's. . . not actually why people don't like to use gameplay mechanics. People don't use gameplay mechanics because they are radically inconsistent with the fluff. A game has to be balanced for gameplay. That does mean that, often, the conclusions one would draw from the way the game plays flatly contradict what is stated as fact in the background material.

Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Grakmar wrote:
Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Except for all the fluff presented in third-person omniscient format. If it's stated as a fact, it's a fact.

Now, all the fluff presented from someone's point of view, yes, that might be propaganda, or mis-interpreted, or simply wrong. But there is factual information, as well; and that factual information commonly contradicts what you see on the tabletop. Like I said; the tabletop game has to be balanced, so as to make for a fun game to play. The background fluff is not balanced in the same way.

Grakmar wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

EmilCrane wrote:@ baronleavgh

I don't have access to those IA diagrams, so thanks for the info, I think in general our problem is the lack of consistent information available on the specs of 40k equipment

There is very consistent information on 40k technology (gameplay mechanics). But, people tend to get upset by it, because it's very clear that the weapons used in 40k are really poor, and they don't like to face the fact that a modern military could absolutely crush anything 40k has to offer (apart from space combat).

That's. . . not actually why people don't like to use gameplay mechanics. People don't use gameplay mechanics because they are radically inconsistent with the fluff. A game has to be balanced for gameplay. That does mean that, often, the conclusions one would draw from the way the game plays flatly contradict what is stated as fact in the background material.

Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Nope, rules just doesn't equal facts. Or are you going to tell me an assault cannons rate of fire is only twice as fast as regular automatic weapons?

Soladrin wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Nope, rules just doesn't equal facts. Or are you going to tell me an assault cannons rate of fire is only twice as fast as regular automatic weapons?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. The weapons used in 40k are really slow rate of fire, weak, and incredibly limited range.

Grakmar wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Nope, rules just doesn't equal facts. Or are you going to tell me an assault cannons rate of fire is only twice as fast as regular automatic weapons?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. The weapons used in 40k are really slow rate of fire, weak, and incredibly limited range.

Yeah, keep on trollin mate.

Soladrin wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Grakmar wrote:
Right, but the fluff is all considered to be in-universe propaganda. So, gameplay mechanics are the only consistent and reliable information we have.

Nope, rules just doesn't equal facts. Or are you going to tell me an assault cannons rate of fire is only twice as fast as regular automatic weapons?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. The weapons used in 40k are really slow rate of fire, weak, and incredibly limited range.

Yeah, keep on trollin mate.

It's not trolling. I'm simply saying that in the 40k universe, technology is really poor compared to our own in some ways. Weaponry is one of those ways.