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.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And Lance batteries aren't 100 km snipers. They are 40,000 km WMD's.

At 100km ranges for snipers, I think the curve of the planet would make it so you're normally shooting through the planet and the enemy gets hit by a shot that comes out from the ground, even if you are using a laser weapon.

I'm talking orbital snipers. You'd think that cannons with barrels bigger than warlord titans would make some boom on the ground, but no.

 Selym wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And Lance batteries aren't 100 km snipers. They are 40,000 km WMD's.

At 100km ranges for snipers, I think the curve of the planet would make it so you're normally shooting through the planet and the enemy gets hit by a shot that comes out from the ground, even if you are using a laser weapon.

I'm talking orbital snipers. You'd think that cannons with barrels bigger than warlord titans would make some boom on the ground, but no.

I assumed they made a spaceship weapon specifically for this kind of pinpoint shooting. It seems the least dumb explanation.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And Lance batteries aren't 100 km snipers. They are 40,000 km WMD's.

At 100km ranges for snipers, I think the curve of the planet would make it so you're normally shooting through the planet and the enemy gets hit by a shot that comes out from the ground, even if you are using a laser weapon.

Side note, laser weapons would be good for snipers IRL if we can get a man-portable one to be lethal, due to the total lack of recoil due to lasers having no mass due to being made of light.

They would have recoil. Photons still have momentum.

And such a weapon would be highly susceptible to environmental issues such as dust or humidity.

pm713 wrote:

 Selym wrote:


I'm talking orbital snipers. You'd think that cannons with barrels bigger than warlord titans would make some boom on the ground, but no.

I assumed they made a spaceship weapon specifically for this kind of pinpoint shooting. It seems the least dumb explanation.

Lance Batteries are designed to punch holes straight through enemy battleships - I don't recall them being used frequently from orbit against ground targets instead of Macro Cannon Batteries, which are far better suited for that. Plus Lance Batteries are typically mounted on the top half of Imperial ships, so unless we're talking about Space Stations here, the ship would have to be nearly upside down to fire them at the ground.

Hope you brought some sickie bags

 General Annoyance wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Selym wrote:


I'm talking orbital snipers. You'd think that cannons with barrels bigger than warlord titans would make some boom on the ground, but no.

I assumed they made a spaceship weapon specifically for this kind of pinpoint shooting. It seems the least dumb explanation.

Lance Batteries are designed to punch holes straight through enemy battleships - I don't recall them being used frequently from orbit against ground targets instead of Macro Cannon Batteries, which are far better suited for that.

Which begs the question of "Why the eternal-rules-lawyering feth did GW say Lance Batterise for all Orbital Strike attacks?"

Though, tbf, a macro-cannon hit is not going to leave you a battlefield to fight on.

 Pouncey wrote:
"Oh hey, Bobicus the Librarian, glad to see you on the battlefield today. How's about making us all strong with your space magic?"

"I can't do that."

"Why not? You did it less than 24 hours ago and it was awesome."

"Today I only know how to make you invisible. But if the battle continues tomorrow I might be able to make you all strong and tough. Maybe not. We'll see."

He then walks over to Captain Koqinbrayn and asks about the orbital lance strikes.

"No Lance strikes tomorrow, but look! My gun magically turned shinier and more accurate!"

"But what happened to the Lance Strike?"

"SPACE ACE"

 Selym wrote:


Which begs the question of "Why the eternal-rules-lawyering feth did GW say Lance Batterise for all Orbital Strike attacks?"

You just need to look deep into your own heart, and forge that damn narrative!

But seriously, the bigger gripe I have with Orbital strikes is that they only manage to create a large blast template. They may as well be throwing an Ork prisoner down to the planet's surface in a cargo crate to create that small an impact.

Though, tbf, a macro-cannon hit is not going to leave you a battlefield to fight on.

A full battery of them perhaps, but given how inaccurate they are, most of them will probably miss and hit that holy shrine that we were trying to defend from xenos filth. Truth is Imperial Battleships don't have many weapons that won't tear the very ground of a planet asunder, since they're all designed to shred enemy ships in deep space with no need to regard for overkill.

Now if Orbital Strikes are being delivered by orbiting weapons platforms, this can make sense, since lasers don't disperse any kinetic energy when they hit something; a small Lance Battery would create a very small, but extremely hot and deadly, ring of destruction on the battlefield below, possibly cutting through the ground due to the extreme heat it relies on to penetrate armour. And those platforms can aim themselves properly towards a planet's surface using retro thrusters. Sounds a lot more viable than a whole Battleship doing the same thing, which it'd probably have to be out of orbit to perform such a manoeuvre.

Either way, a large blast is too small. Needs to be more on level with an apocalypse template.

G.A

 oldzoggy wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
Much of this discussion assumes that GW is motivated to find balance in the game.
That they are concerned that your ITC Super Bowl invitational might be "ruined" because Timmy brought that army with the Warlord table that makes everyone salty, etc.
It is quite possible that they are simply unconcerned w/ sportshammer players and don't care to entertain their demands. Sales seem to be good and the tourney crowd makes their own FAQs and rules up now anyways so why should GW bother really?

Thats an other discussion. The point is that the DW warlord traits don't really seem to be that unbalanced at all when you compare them with the other warlord traits out there.
Sure you could argue that warlord traits as a whole are a flawed mechanism, but these specificly aren't worse than most warlord trait tables out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also don't think that GW doesn't care that much about balance. Sure they did a while back but the huge success of them rebalancing AoS suggests that they do care enough to make the switch.
The DW codex just isn't the place to balance 40k. What did you expect. A DW codex with mandatory nerfs for all broken things in 40k ?

Personally I'm not bothered by much of anything in 40k. I'm not a tourney/sportshammer player so I don't lose sleep over this kind of stuff. I buy pretty models, roll some dice and have some laughs with friends. The game is whatever GW decides it is. Sometimes you have the nasty stuff, sometimes your opponent does. Cry less, roll more. Everything will be turned upside down come
Next codex/rules revision anyways...

Na it isn't that I care that mch about the balance, tha can be figured out between players. But I do care about having no casual players around to play with due to high prices, no point sytem and an inferior rules set


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All this has nearly nothing to do with the barely game affecting random deviation in generated warlordtraits.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And Lance batteries aren't 100 km snipers. They are 40,000 km WMD's.

At 100km ranges for snipers, I think the curve of the planet would make it so you're normally shooting through the planet and the enemy gets hit by a shot that comes out from the ground, even if you are using a laser weapon.

Side note, laser weapons would be good for snipers IRL if we can get a man-portable one to be lethal, due to the total lack of recoil due to lasers having no mass due to being made of light.

They would have recoil. Photons still have momentum.

And such a weapon would be highly susceptible to environmental issues such as dust or humidity.

What?

How can a photon have momentum if it has no mass?

Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

So it's primarily an issue of weatherproofing the weapon then?

Also I guess you probably wouldn't want to use it in the rain due to refraction.

Let's nor forget refraction in the atmosphere, disturbances from the magnetic field, and particles of air that the laser would burn through. All would have an effect.

Pouncey wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

So it's primarily an issue of weatherproofing the weapon then?

Also I guess you probably wouldn't want to use it in the rain due to refraction.

Selym wrote:Let's nor forget refraction in the atmosphere, disturbances from the magnetic field, and particles of air that the laser would burn through. All would have an effect.

Come to think of those, I think Lance Weapons were most certainly designed for deep space combat

 General Annoyance wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

So it's primarily an issue of weatherproofing the weapon then?

Also I guess you probably wouldn't want to use it in the rain due to refraction.

Selym wrote:Let's nor forget refraction in the atmosphere, disturbances from the magnetic field, and particles of air that the laser would burn through. All would have an effect.

Come to think of those, I think Lance Weapons were most certainly designed for deep space combat

Space isn't completely empty though. Just mostly empty.

Though given that there's a lot of empty space in and around each atom with the particles being relatively small, even a planet is mostly open space. Hell, even a human being is actually empty space for the most part.

 Pouncey wrote:


Space isn't completely empty though. Just mostly empty.

Though given that there's a lot of empty space in and around each atom with the particles being relatively small, even a planet is mostly open space. Hell, even a human being is actually empty space for the most part.

Given that space is a vacuum, it should allow for the beam to travel unhindered.

Even then, surely a beam of this magnitude would not be affected in the same way as smaller beams by things like refraction/reflection? Considering how hot the beam is, many thousands of degrees so, surely any vapour it comes into contact with will just evaporate instantly, meaning the beam won't refract.

Topic, anyone?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Topic, anyone?

Oh yeah, something about GW madness?

I think we've pretty much agreed/accepted that this is the way 7th edition is, and are praying that 8th will do something major to change such weird and balance-unfriendly rules. Thought I may as well learn a bit more about big frickin' lazors

 Azreal13 wrote:
Topic, anyone?

Word of OP says it's relevant

 Pouncey wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And Lance batteries aren't 100 km snipers. They are 40,000 km WMD's.

At 100km ranges for snipers, I think the curve of the planet would make it so you're normally shooting through the planet and the enemy gets hit by a shot that comes out from the ground, even if you are using a laser weapon.

Side note, laser weapons would be good for snipers IRL if we can get a man-portable one to be lethal, due to the total lack of recoil due to lasers having no mass due to being made of light.

They would have recoil. Photons still have momentum.

And such a weapon would be highly susceptible to environmental issues such as dust or humidity.

What?

How can a photon have momentum if it has no mass?

Relativity. The total energy of a particle is defined as E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (p^2)(c^2) where m is the rest mass, p is momentum, E is energy and c is the speed of light. From there you have m=0, so p = E/c. Energy of a photon is h*f (where h is planck's constant and f is frequency) which when subbed in gives us p = hf/c.

This small momentum of photons is what allows solar sails to work.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Space isn't completely empty though. Just mostly empty.

Though given that there's a lot of empty space in and around each atom with the particles being relatively small, even a planet is mostly open space. Hell, even a human being is actually empty space for the most part.

Given that space is a vacuum, it should allow for the beam to travel unhindered.

Even then, surely a beam of this magnitude would not be affected in the same way as smaller beams by things like refraction/reflection? Considering how hot the beam is, many thousands of degrees so, surely any vapour it comes into contact with will just evaporate instantly, meaning the beam won't refract.

True.

Plus laser weapons wouldn't be good for most troops. Kinetic energy weapons are WAY more powerful for the energy spent, and the likely effect of firing off tons of manslaying laser beams is that the firers are going to be engulfed in heat, as the weapons would heat up along with the targets. Because of physics or something, I dunno, I watched some video about why Fallout's laser weapons are scientifically absurd. They also looked into the series' mininukes and discovered that it is theoretically possible to create nuclear weapons that small, though the radiation given off by each detonation would kill everyone within 200 feet of the detonation within minutes so they'd be a terrible idea.

Dont roll on that table then???

Am I missing something?
I agree its a BS table and a step backward/same for most of the dross WL tables but.......8th ed is around the corner right?

GW needs to abolish the WL trait table or let us pick them.
Tyranid "eats forest one" ahahahahaha

No.

Cmon GW.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

Photons do transfer kinetic energy. That is the only energy they have. If photons didn't carry and transfer energy then the Earth would be very cold right now

Make traits like AoS where we can pick the stupid things.

Would still be imbalanced, but at least it would be predictable imbalance, which is waaay better.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Selym wrote:
And Lance batteries aren't 100 km snipers. They are 40,000 km WMD's.

At 100km ranges for snipers, I think the curve of the planet would make it so you're normally shooting through the planet and the enemy gets hit by a shot that comes out from the ground, even if you are using a laser weapon.

Side note, laser weapons would be good for snipers IRL if we can get a man-portable one to be lethal, due to the total lack of recoil due to lasers having no mass due to being made of light.

They would have recoil. Photons still have momentum.

And such a weapon would be highly susceptible to environmental issues such as dust or humidity.

What?

How can a photon have momentum if it has no mass?

Relativity. The total energy of a particle is defined as E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (p^2)(c^2) where m is the rest mass, p is momentum, E is energy and c is the speed of light. From there you have m=0, so p = E/c. Energy of a photon is h*f (where h is planck's constant and f is frequency) which when subbed in gives us p = hf/c.

This small momentum of photons is what allows solar sails to work.

Okies, that was way too sciency for me to even attempt to counter.

Would the recoil given off by a man-killing laser weapon be enough to be relevant to a human soldier?

It would have to be an absolute fethton of energy in one beam.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

Photons do transfer kinetic energy. That is the only energy they have. If photons didn't carry and transfer energy then the Earth would be very cold right now

I thought photons gave off heat energy, not kinetic energy.

Pouncey wrote:
I watched some video about why Fallout's laser weapons are scientifically absurd.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Photons do transfer kinetic energy. That is the only energy they have. If photons didn't carry and transfer energy then the Earth would be very cold right now

You were watching ShoddyCast's Science series behind various things in video games and movies, which I recommend you watch Malus (I can't link it cos of all the swears). Those weapons made, quote: "no sense" because such a weapon has no moving parts present. However, they [Bethesda] were correct in that objects in the game world don't move about when you shoot them, since they only transfer their heat energy to the target. Plasma weapons can create a small amount of recoil since the plasma bolt has an amount of mass, but light has no mass, so cannot confer any kinetic energy, either behind the firing chamber or at the target.

 Pouncey wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Indeed there would be no recoil whatsoever on a Lance since no moving parts are needed to generate the beam, and lasers don't transfer any kinetic energy. However, the focusing elements and optics could indeed be affected by dust that would inhibit their ability to fire properly or at all.

Photons do transfer kinetic energy. That is the only energy they have. If photons didn't carry and transfer energy then the Earth would be very cold right now

I thought photons gave off heat energy, not kinetic energy.

Not quite. Heat energy is a measure of the transfer of energy from one system to another. This transfer is due to collisions and other interactions between moving particles (or the emission and absorption of photons) and so is a transfer of kinetic energy.

So the heat transfer from the sun to the earth is due to the sun emitting photons with kinetic energy, which then collide with the earth and impart some/all of that energy to the atoms making up the earth which gives them more energy, so they move slightly faster which we perceive as a rise in temperature.

On topic as to the chart. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see any drop in the random aspects until 8th, if then.