Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)
Reply
Old 10 Jun 2010, 22:39   #21 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

It is more that "Blasts" in Epic are very different to 40K. A 40K blast is just a large explosion. In Epic, a 'barrage template' represents either a systematic bombardment of that general area (the equivalent of 5-6 turns of 40K shooting, if not more) or one MASSIVE detonation that would make 40K's Deathstrike Missile look like a firework.

The thing to remember though is even 40K often fails to recognise the differences in size. The Exterminator Autocannons are much smaller than the Predator Autocannon, yet have a significant increase in fire rate. Logic would state the Predator's weapon should have some bonus over the shorter, stubbier Autocannons, but they don't.

There is also the fact that we can equate some of the discrepancy by studying the weapon's mount, rather than the weapon itself. A shadowsword's weapon is pretty exposed and vulnerable. The Volcano Cannon on the Warlord, on the other hand, looks so well armoured you could probably use it as a wreaking ball.

There's also other elements we can consider - the Titan's weapon is mounted on an arm, and thus must presumably house the aculator systems on the weapon itself. The Titan may also have additional features such as superior cooling, or redundant systems to keep the weapon functioning if the armour plating fails. None of these features are present on the Shadowsword, which barely has room to house the capacitor systems, let alone backups!

In short, the physical dimensions of the weapon do not automatically equate to "more power"; they can also mean more flexible, more armoured, or more reliable.
__________________
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 08:06   #22 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 272
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

I understand what your getting at, but the Warlord Volcano Cannon is soo much bigger that it must have a larger area-of-effect. The Volcano cannon is a laser weapon, and logic tells us the width of the beam is roughly equivalent to the width of the barrel that fired it. Therefore, the warlord titans Laser beam would be 'wider', if only because of the size of the weapons barrel. Wider Laser = increased area of effect. They may still have the same power, but the Warlords hits a little bit more.
And on the Blasts thing, that's exactly what I meant. Epic doesn't represent blasts, other than huge ones, because at the scale, they're pretty insignificant.
Even if what you say is true, a Shadowsword Volcano cannon could theoretically be mounted on a Knight, a Warlords coudn't. A baneswords quake cannon could be mounted on a Knight, a Warlords couldn't.
ultimatedragonlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 09:54   #23 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Right, let's get this clear; A Banesword is not armed with a Quake Cannon. A Banesword is armed with a Banesword cannon. Its weapon has nothing in common with the weapons mounted on Titans. GW have been getting very careless in naming things lately (why does the Eradicator have a 'Nova cannon', a weapon mounted on starships, and not an 'Eradicator cannon'?) and this seems to confuse the hell out of players.

Yes, there should be a difference between the two Volcano Cannons, but there is not. There never has been in any ruleset, and even the fluff does not care to make a distinction very often.
__________________
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 15:25   #24 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,584
Send a message via AIM to Gatler Send a message via MSN to Gatler
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wargamer
Right, let's get this clear; A Banesword is not armed with a Quake Cannon. A Banesword is armed with a Banesword cannon. Its weapon has nothing in common with the weapons mounted on Titans.
Is that because its not the right size from your perspective, or because it's actually a completely different weapon with the same name?

Quote:
GW have been getting very careless in naming things lately (why does the Eradicator have a 'Nova cannon', a weapon mounted on starships, and not an 'Eradicator cannon'?) and this seems to confuse the hell out of players.
Perhaps nova cannon firepower scales exponentially with size? :P
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Forgive you? Of course I forgive you. That is your god's function. Your crime is forgiven. However, your stupidity requires a response." - Leto Atreides II, God Emperor of Dune
Gatler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 15:32   #25 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 272
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Apocalypse does. I know you hate the whole S thing, but If you assume they're both S10 instead, the Warlords version is still bigger. If Forgeworld made rules for the Warlord, I would imagine the Volcano cannons would be S10 AP1 Massive Blast, (the one they used for the Bombard) Ordnance 1, Titan Killer D3 or similar. Same strength, but affecting slightly bigger area. I know the GW naming was rather careless, but it's possibly that it was actually reffering to what we know as an Earthshaker cannon? They sound fairly similar, and as you said, back then they named things slightly differently. I could feasibly see an Earthshaker cannon mounted on a Knight too.
Oh, and the banesword IS armed with a Quake cannon. It has the same stats and the warlord, but half the range and 1 shot instead of two. it has as much in common with the Warlord Quake cannon as the Shadowswords volcano cannon has in common with the Warlords.
ultimatedragonlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 15:40   #26 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,814
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Thunder
Quote:
GW have been getting very careless in naming things lately (why does the Eradicator have a 'Nova cannon', a weapon mounted on starships, and not an 'Eradicator cannon'?) and this seems to confuse the hell out of players.
Perhaps nova cannon firepower scales exponentially with size? :P
No, not even close.

The ground Nova cannon uses plasma in it's tech, the BFG one uses a melta charge.

The Ground Nova Cannon shares more in common with a plasma blastgun believe it or not. :P
__________________


Seventh Sanctum signature oddities.
Alignment: Neutral Pessimistic
Area of Magical Study: Practical Chronomancy
Favorite Spells: Divine Spell of the Cotton Candy Golem and Field of Bacon.

Proud supporter of Joe Wood!

Makes this your one good deed a day.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
enderwiggin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 15:48   #27 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,584
Send a message via AIM to Gatler Send a message via MSN to Gatler
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Quote:
Originally Posted by enderwiggin
The Ground Nova Cannon shares more in common with a plasma blastgun believe it or not. :P
Bleh. Well, it wouldn't be the first time GW subjected us to questionable nomenclature... XD
__________________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Forgive you? Of course I forgive you. That is your god's function. Your crime is forgiven. However, your stupidity requires a response." - Leto Atreides II, God Emperor of Dune
Gatler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 16:20   #28 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultimatedragonlord
Apocalypse does. I know you hate the whole S thing, but If you assume they're both S10 instead, the Warlords version is still bigger. If Forgeworld made rules for the Warlord, I would imagine the Volcano cannons would be S10 AP1 Massive Blast, (the one they used for the Bombard) Ordnance 1, Titan Killer D3 or similar. Same strength, but affecting slightly bigger area. I know the GW naming was rather careless, but it's possibly that it was actually reffering to what we know as an Earthshaker cannon? They sound fairly similar, and as you said, back then they named things slightly differently. I could feasibly see an Earthshaker cannon mounted on a Knight too.
Oh, and the banesword IS armed with a Quake cannon. It has the same stats and the warlord, but half the range and 1 shot instead of two. it has as much in common with the Warlord Quake cannon as the Shadowswords volcano cannon has in common with the Warlords.
You are wrong on both counts. 40K does not allow "bigger" templates than Large Blast. Nor is the Banesword armed with a 'shorter' Quake Cannon. That weapon is far too small to be a Quake Cannon. It would be like saying Guardsmen are armed with "short barreled lascannons".

Besides which, shortening the barrel doesn't allow you to mount it on a Baneblade chassis... there's nowhere to store the bloody shells! These things are massive! Unless the Banesword can only fire three times in a game, it isn't armed with a Quake Cannon.

I have said this many times - Apocalypse is not source material. Apocalypse is fanwankery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enderwiggin
The ground Nova cannon uses plasma in it's tech, the BFG one uses a melta charge.
Actually, the Nova Cannon fires an imploding shell... so it clearly isn't Melta.

I think you're thinking of the Ordinatus Armageddon, which is armed with a "Nova Cannon" that is in essence a massive plasma lance.
__________________
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11 Jun 2010, 16:59   #29 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 18,087
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Given the mechanics involved, I think the Nova Cannon in Gothic is probably named literally. As in, the explosion is actually a small nova, caused by screwing with the interaction between gravity and opposing forces between atoms. That would explain why it is an imploding charge, and also how it could cause damage over such a large area so quickly. But the Epic version is definitely a plasma weapon, so my guess is that the Imperium just doesn't have all that many good ideas for names...

On-topic, it probably means that weapons in the super-heavy class and above are named more for their mechanism than any specific design. So a Quake Cannon just refers to any Battle Cannon above a certain size, and the Volcano Cannon is any laser-based weapon above a certain size. Treating them more as nicknames. This sort of happens with Lascannons and Bolters in 40k. A Lascannon is a type of weapon, not a specific design. And though the game doesn't represent it, there would probably be differences in capability between the versions used by different armies.
khanaris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12 Jun 2010, 00:04   #30 (permalink)
Ethereal
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: On the Midnight Ocean
Posts: 26,404
Send a message via MSN to Wargamer
Default Re: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety)

Ah, well... on that note, Khanaris, there is some evidence both ways.

Firstly, a Quake Cannon is not an upscaled battle cannon - that's a macro-cannon. A Quake Cannon is a very specific weapon, of which there is no progression up or down - it is a unique armament.

Now, as to scaling of weapons... to be honest, I am not sure what you are referring to there. We do not really see the term 'Bolter' stapled to a whole host of radically different weapons. Yes, fine, there may be a difference between a Goodwyn-Daes pattern Bolter and an Astartes pattern Bolter, but they both use the same ammunition, same mechanics, etc. There is no evidence to suggest there is a noteworthy difference in performance that can be attributed to anything beyond additional mechanisms (scopes and such) or clip type.

The only weapons where your theory does hold water are Lasguns/Autoguns, and Defence Lasers. Interesting point there - the Shadowsword was originally armed with a Defence Laser. Somewhere along the line it became a Volcano Cannon. This was done at the same time the Titans lost their Defence Lasers, and gained the Volcano Cannon in kind. For reference, when Warlords had Defence Lasers, "Lascannons" and "Autocannons" were listed as main guns for the Titan as well.

Now here's the thing; rulewise, there has never been any variation in this weapon. A Volcano Cannon is a Volcano Cannon regardless of what it is mounted on. This is true both for Epic (and its forebearers) and for 40K.

On that subject, it is also worth looking at the Shadowsword variants. The Stormblade's Plasma Blastgun uses the same rules as the Plasma Blastgun mounted on a Titan. It is the same weapon, and it functions the same way. Clearly, if these weapons do 'scale' in power, area of effect, range or rate of fire, then the scaling is not shown in game terms.

Now I am sure someone there is thinking "If those guns can be fitted to a Baneblade, why not a Quake Cannon?" The answer is simple - ammunition. Quake Cannons are massive! Shadowswords and (presumably) Stormblades power their weapons via a capacitor system. Their main drives charge the capacitor, which in turn is discharged upon firing. As long as the reactor and capacitors function, the gun has infinite ammunition for all intents and purposes. A Quake Cannon does not, and cannot work this way - it fires solid rounds. Due to the sheer size of the gun, it is not really feasable for a Baneblade sized vehicle to mount the gun - it would have only two shots at best, and that assumes it goes into battle with the weapon pre-loaded! Shortening the barrel might help, but not by much; the Banesword would still run out of ammo by turn four.

Ergo, whatever the Banesword is armed with, it is not a Quake Cannon.
__________________
Farewell, Kangaroo Joe, you shall not be forgotten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Norman
"Wargamer is never wrong, Frodo Baggins; he knows precisely the rules he means to."
Wargamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KALSHINKOS ROSEN KNIGHTS Kalshinko Project Logs 7 30 Jun 2010 11:55
Rosen Knights - 2nd company Skeith Project Logs 17 03 Jun 2010 13:52
MOVED: Who knows about Knights? (and not the Rosen variety) Fish Ead General 40K 0 23 May 2010 03:47
ROSEN KNIGHTS DISCUSSION captain_octavain Space Marines 697 10 Jan 2009 14:39
Rosen Knights Chaplains trex238 Showcase 4 16 Dec 2008 05:27