204 replies to this topic

[Grey Mage]

Now, if you want to allude to the DA having some good destroyer level weapons to deploy during apocalypse games.... well, they are a first founding chapter.

In a solid fluff area mention their small fleet of bane-blade chassis, and how these behemoths are rarely awakened, resting in cold slumber for the hours of greatest need where they are summoned forth to drown the largest of hordes and cut down the mightiest of war machines with their emperor given might.

I like the S10 AP1, and Id go for an alternate firing mode of S9/AP2 with 2 shots, as IIRC it used to be able to go focused or unfocused.

[MadDoc]

Now, if you want to allude to the DA having some good destroyer level weapons to deploy during apocalypse games.... well, they are a first founding chapter.

This, without going into any specifics, would be good. Something cryptic about pre-heresy technologies or archeotech weapons, but not giving too much away. Keep things suitably DA and secretive.

In a solid fluff area mention their small fleet of bane-blade chassis, and how these behemoths are rarely awakened, resting in cold slumber for the hours of greatest need where they are summoned forth to drown the largest of hordes and cut down the mightiest of war machines with their emperor given might.

Marines have never used Baneblades, Fellblades perhaps, not Baneblades. Even then I'd say not an idea I'd be in favour of.

I like the S10 AP1, and Id go for an alternate firing mode of S9/AP2 with 2 shots, as IIRC it used to be able to go focused or unfocused.

Nope, it has never had alternative fire modes in any iteration of rules produced for it by GW.

Edited by MadDoc, 05 April 2011 - 11:19 AM.

[Brother_Darius]

I like the S10 AP1, and Id go for an alternate firing mode of S9/AP2 with 2 shots, as IIRC it used to be able to go focused or unfocused.

Nope, it has never had alternative fire modes in any iteration of rules produced for it by GW.

That shouldn't prevent us from doing it now. It wouldn't be the first time something got an additional tweak moving from one edition to the next. I'm not even sure the rapier has been in every edition. Grey Knights didn't use to have monkey assistances. There didn't use to be Ironclad or Libby dreadnoughts. LandRaiders didn't use to be able to deep strike. Space Marians didn't use to be able to copy the Orcs 'red ones go fasts rule. Now the BA can, etc....

Giving the rapier an alt firing mode is quite reasonable.

Edited by Brother_Darius, 05 April 2011 - 05:51 PM.

[shabbadoo]

Sure, why not? After all, the Thunderfire Cannon is a combination of the Thudd Gun, Mole Mortar, and a third fire mode. I would make the Rapier's secondary mode a rapid fire, lower strength attack though- similar to a multi-laser, though a few more shots(heavy 6 perhaps).

Edited by shabbadoo, 05 April 2011 - 09:56 PM.

[MadDoc]

Nope, it has never had alternative fire modes in any iteration of rules produced for it by GW.

That shouldn't prevent us from doing it now. It wouldn't be the first time something got an additional tweak moving from one edition to the next. I'm not even sure the rapier has been in every edition.

In my opinion it should, its not our IP/setting, what would make us think we have the right to go making that level of change to an established item just because? If you want to argue that GW does it, yes they do, but then its their setting.

Making new additions is one thing, but altering the established background of an already clearly defined weapon just so we can add a needless additional rule is another thing entirely.

You want a super multi-laser style weapon, make something up and suggest it as an addition, don't go the Mat Ward route and rape the background to try shoehorning something into an already defined weapon.

Grey Knights didn't use to have monkey assistances.

They still don't, Inquisitors have access to Jokaero as henchman, and could use them back in Rogue Trader too, so not actually any change there at all.

There didn't use to be Ironclad or Libby dreadnoughts. LandRaiders didn't use to be able to deep strike.

All things introduced by Mat "Killer of the Background" Ward, if that was supposed to support your position, using anything from his poison pen was the totally wrong way of doing it.

Space Marians didn't use to be able to copy the Orcs 'red ones go fasts rule. Now the BA can, etc....

C:BA 3E-4E Overcharged engines (in contrast to the single edition in which their vehicles were "normal"), they now have Fast vehicles thanks to Lucius pattern engines, are you really trying to claim that faster/Fast BA Rhinos, etc. is new? That's without even getting into the fact that the mechanics for Red Paint Jobs and Lucifer pattern engines are completely different.

Giving the rapier an alt firing mode is quite reasonable.

Not in my opinion. Its not supported by any background, given the fact that the Rapier already has established background and none of it even hints at alternative fire modes, that'd make for an unfluffy alteration, which for me makes it a non-starter.

Sure, why not? After all, the Thunderfire Cannon is a combination of the Thudd Gun, Mole Mortar, and a third fire mode. I would make the Rapier's secondary mode a rapid fire, lower strength attack though- similar to a multi-laser, though a few more shots(heavy 6 perhaps).

Why not? How about for starters we go with the fact that its not supported by anything in the background for the Rapier.

Edited by MadDoc, 06 April 2011 - 12:58 AM.

[Brother_Darius]

No need to be so overly dramatic. Adding an option firing setting is not "raping" the background. Most people are not historians, heck most people thought it was something it could already do anyways.

Your more than willing to follow the 'precedent' of the other codex and go in direction laid down by GW in the the marine codex when it suits your argument. However when its a direction you don't like all of a sudden we're going the Matt Ward route. Well since he is a member of GW, and has done most of the marine Dex, it would seem going the 'att Ward route is right in line with what GS would do.

[MadDoc]

No need to be so overly dramatic. Adding an option firing setting is not "raping" the background.

Perhaps on some level I was hoping the use of such strong wording might help force the point home, or at least help it sink in, so I wouldn't need to repeat myself for hundredth time.

To me its just another example of the complete disregard some people have for the background, and that bothers me in a project thats supposedly making a more characterful DA list (which to me suggests one that's more representative of the background not one that wantonly disregards it (even if only in what you might consider minor ways)).

There isn't so much as a hint anywhere in the background that the Rapier has an alternate fire mode (particular not a rapid fire mode), in fact everything makes it clear that the Rapier is a one shot (albeit from four barrels at once) heavy duty lascannon, not some upgunned multi-laser that can focus fire.

Most people are not historians, heck most people thought it was something it could already do anyways.

And their not being aware of the actual details/facts invalidates my position how exactly?

Your more than willing to follow the 'precedent' of the other codex and go in direction laid down by GW in the the marine codex when it suits your argument. However when its a direction you don't like all of a sudden we're going the Matt Ward route. Well since he is a member of GW, and has done most of the marine Dex, it would seem going the 'att Ward route is right in line with what GS would do.

You show me one example where I've been willing to compromise the background just to accomodate changes to bring the list into line with the other Marine 'dexes (which seems to be what you're suggesting) and I'll relent. Not one of my ideas has been as out and out against the established background as any number of Ward's abominations and none would require changes anywhere near comparable to the fluff atrocities he repeatedly produces. I have not once suggested compromising existing background, introducing entirely new weapons or units is a very different thing to altering the intrinsic characteristic of an extant and already defined weapon or unit (and even then I've been quick to call foul anything which is unfluffy), as far as I'm concerned giving the Rapier an alt fire mode falls in the same camp as giving Assault Squads heavy weapons, both are patently not representative of the background.

You do realise the amount of heat GW have been drawing over Ward's attrocious writing, right? Theres even an online petention to have him removed from Codex design (if not have him fired outright). He would be one of the last people I'd want to see writing a new DA Codex (just slightly ahead of several of the more blatant fluff ignoring people on here, as at least he manages to turn out the odd balanced list/rules).

Edited by MadDoc, 06 April 2011 - 06:17 AM.

[Hemal]

Guys - civility please...

I was amongst the misguided - I culd've sworn Rapiers had a mixed mode fire pattern but as Mad Doc stated that's wrong - I'm happy to go with a S10 AP1 trundle-along heavy weapon. Making it have an AV (say 10/11 - its just a big gun-track after all!) makes it plenty susceptible to be taken out of action anyway

[MadDoc]

I was amongst the misguided - I culd've sworn Rapiers had a mixed mode fire pattern but as Mad Doc stated that's wrong - I'm happy to go with a S10 AP1 trundle-along heavy weapon. Making it have an AV (say 10/11 - its just a big gun-track after all!) makes it plenty susceptible to be taken out of action anyway

As Artillery all the guns would have Armour 10 all around, any glancing or penetrating hits destroying them outright. I think GW made a good move including that under Artillery in the unit types entry, saves on the need to repeat it in Codexes.

[Grey Mage]

In a solid fluff area mention their small fleet of bane-blade chassis, and how these behemoths are rarely awakened, resting in cold slumber for the hours of greatest need where they are summoned forth to drown the largest of hordes and cut down the mightiest of war machines with their emperor given might.

Marines have never used Baneblades, Fellblades perhaps, not Baneblades. Even then I'd say not an idea I'd be in favour of.

Fellblades, for the record, are a marine-variant of the baneblade chassis.

As for the Rapier- if its artillery its automatically an AV 10 vehicle destroyed on any glancing or penetrating hit.

[shabbadoo]

Perhaps on some level I was hoping the use of such strong wording might help force the point home, or at least help it sink in, so I wouldn't need to repeat myself for hundredth time.

Then don't call it a rapier laser destroyer, just like the Thunderfire Cannon was not instead just called the "Thudd Gun-Mole Mortar-Super Awesomesauce Gun". Don't have to keep everything as it was. Things can be changed, and appropriately re-named(as "Rapier Laser Destroyer Super Awesomesauce Gun" would be a lame name ). I think it is quite fine to disregard the background in this way, as it really isn't disregarding anything.

Edited by shabbadoo, 06 April 2011 - 09:40 AM.

[Isiah]

Indeed. And here's me thinking this was a rules development topic and not an-old-weapon-dusted-off and-reused-topic

Seriously, I'm an extreme conservative (with a small 'c') when it comes to rulez/fluff development but even I realise that some developmental/change along the way is both inevitable and a requirement given how so many other items including the core game itself has changed.

Otherwise we might as well just use our old AoD Codex, play 2nd Edition and be done with it. Wait... AoD that was actually rather a good book .

Oh and let's not get too hot under the collar in our dealings with each other here, and, keep the language used to acceptable and appropriate standards please. Using inappropriate words for effect is neither clever nor wanted.


Cheers
I

[MadDoc]

As for the Rapier- if its artillery its automatically an AV 10 vehicle destroyed on any glancing or penetrating hit.

As has already been mentioned in the post directly before yours...

Then don't call it a rapier laser destroyer, just like the Thunderfire Cannon was not instead just called the "Thudd Gun-Mole Mortar-Super Awesomesauce Gun". Don't have to keep everything as it was. Things can be changed, and appropriately re-named(as "Rapier Laser Destroyer Super Awesomesauce Gun" would be a lame name ). I think it is quite fine to disregard the background in this way, as it really isn't disregarding anything.

How silly of me to call the old school weapon I was trying to reintroduce for a bit of classic nostalgia (and as a means to link the list to what has come before) by its name.

You want a heavy lasweapon that has multiple fire modes, make something up and suggest that, but please don't try telling me I should rename a classic weapon just so that it can have alt fire shoehorned in without breaking the established background. I very consciously included the Rapier (and Tarantula) as a piece of classic kit that helps tie the list not only into the background, but also past editions of the game, I feel sorry for anybody who can't appreciate that.

Where is the need to change the Rapier to something else (effectively removing it) just because a few people who apparently don't respect the background want to add a weapon with an alt fire mode (which can be done via a new and seperate weapon without breaking the Rapier's background anyway)?

The person who made the initial suggestion for alt fire modes (Hemal) has even changed his mind on the issue after having his earlier misremembering of the background cleared up. Surely that should tell you something.

@Isiah - There is a big difference between necessary change and change just for changes sake, what nobody seems to get is that you don't need to change the Rapier just to include another weapon with an alt fire mode, invent a new weapon and introduce that in addition to the Rapier, don't just disregard the background out of hand and/or callously discard a weapon which acts as a tangible link to past background and editions.

[Brother_Darius]

It was done previously with the whirlwind. At one time it had only one fire method. At the time there was no fluff indicating an other firing modes. Now in later editions it has two different settings. It wasn't a big deal then. It wont be a big deal now if its done to the Rapier

[MadDoc]

Edited to remove any confusion as to what I'm actually saying, since apparently things need to be spelled out...

It was done previously with the whirlwind. At one time it had only one fire method. At the time there was no fluff indicating an other firing modes. Now in later editions it has two different settings. It wasn't a big deal then. It wont be a big deal now if its done to the Rapier

No, it won't be a big deal if its done by GW. Are we GW? No.

Its their IP/setting, they've set/defined the rules(how things work within that IP/setting, e.g. Daemons can't just enter real space willy nilly, pyskers tap into the Warp to use their powers, there are no female Marines, etc.)/facts(of that IP/setting) and are free to change them, I'm not so entitled as to believe I can force them to make whatever changes I want just because I make those changes.

Want to make up new stuff, knock yourself out, provided it doesn't run roughshod over the background, because if it does I'm more than willing to call you on it.

What I'm taking away from the vast majority of discussions I've had here, is that there are a lot of those involved in this project that seem to have absolutely zero compunction about making a completely unfluffy/background breaking list, this is simply a micro example of the macro problem. Which is a truly sad state of affairs to me.

You may question why I'm sweating what some of you might flippantly call "the small things", but I'd rather stay true to the background (a major part of what attracted me to the game and DA in particular) than be yet another soulless drudge out for an uber Codex no matter the cost to the background or the armies character. I view compromising on even the little things as compromising what I believe, so why should I do that just because it'd be easier (for some)?

Edited by MadDoc, 07 April 2011 - 11:05 AM.

[Grey Mage]

The idea that changes cant be made because we are not GW is a logical fallacy- if we were to follow this line of thought to its conclusion this whole project would have to be scrapped because alot of it is different than what is currently in C:DA.

Moreover, I have found the fluff for the alternate firing mode- its in epic, in the Baran Siegemasters sublist for the IG:

"The Rapier is bulky and heavy, and is usually mounted on a set of caterpillar tracks rather than being carried by hand. It consists of a modified lascannon with four separate barrels. Because the laser blast is diffused through four barrels the range is shortened and the blast spread slightly. As a result the Rapier is capable of hitting dispersed targets such as infantry. This said, the Rapier is primarily an anti-tank weapon, and is usually used to provide an integral anti-tank capability for Siege infantry companies."

Edited by Grey Mage, 07 April 2011 - 04:09 AM.

[MadDoc]

The idea that changes cant be made because we are not GW is a logical fallacy- if we were to follow this line of thought to its conclusion this whole project would have to be scrapped because alot of it is different than what is currently in C:DA.

Don't put words in my mouth, I've had to put up with quite enough of that from others already, I never said changes can't be made, what I said was we shouldn't be making changes to established background, particularly not while trying to justify it by saying GW do it so its ok for us to (GW cast and sell Citadel Space Marine/Dark Angels miniatures, does that mean we can too? They do it so why not?). New units/weapons/wargear/whatever can be added without needing to resort to altering established background. Addition can be achieved through expansion on already established material (as is the case with this unit).

Moreover, I have found the fluff for the alternate firing mode- its in epic, in the Baran Siegemasters sublist for the IG:

"The Rapier is bulky and heavy, and is usually mounted on a set of caterpillar tracks rather than being carried by hand. It consists of a modified lascannon with four separate barrels. Because the laser blast is diffused through four barrels the range is shortened and the blast spread slightly. As a result the Rapier is capable of hitting dispersed targets such as infantry. This said, the Rapier is primarily an anti-tank weapon, and is usually used to provide an integral anti-tank capability for Siege infantry companies."

Nice try, but that says absolutely nothing about alternative fire modes, it doesn't even hint at them, in fact it attributes the severely limited (I'm well aware of that list and its rules so presenting the quote without context hasn't helped any) anti-infantry capabilities to the Rapiers blast always being "spread slightly", nothing to do with being able to rapid fire or fire in a more dispersed mode. Care to point out the part that supposedly suggests/supports an alternate fire mode? I can't see anything in the quote you've posted or in the full text for the Rapier from the Baran Siegemasters list either.

[Grey Mage]

Well if its not an alternate fire mode then apparently S10 AP1 is appropriate- thats hardly diffused, nor is a single shot particularly capable of hitting dispersed targets.....

Indeed, such a statement would imply a blast template of some kind, a shorter range than a lascannon, and that this is a secondary use- and a secondary fire mode.

And Im not putting words in your mouth- you said we cant change anything. Well right now theres nothing in the current C:DA that suggests they have access to rapiers anyways, nor are any of the variant landraiders in IA:Update mentioned, etc. If you change anything in the book, anything at all from a single profile to how a word is phrased you have changed their intellectual property. I can understand wanting to stay close to the fluff, but the idea that we cant redo what GW has done doesnt make any sense. And thats what you said right here:

Its their IP/setting, they've set/defined the rules/facts and are free to change them, I'm not so entitled as to believe I can force them to make whatever changes I want just because I make those changes.

If thats not what you meant than I ask you to please in the future to not use such strong words unless your going to make sure theyve been clarified for the rest of us who cannot read your mind.

[MadDoc]

Well if its not an alternate fire mode then apparently S10 AP1 is appropriate- thats hardly diffused, nor is a single shot particularly capable of hitting dispersed targets.....

Every official set of rules for the Rapier is heavy, none have blasts, and seizing on a poorly worded fluff attempt to explain why they gave Rapiers in a single Epic list the barest minimum of an AP value doesn't change that. You brought Epic into this so I'll use Epic to show you how you're wrong, minium Anti-personnel value for a blast weapon in Epic AP5+, average AP for a non-defensive weapon (a strength higher than 5 in 40K) with a high rate of fire (3 or more shots in 40K) AP5+, AP of Rapier AP6+, that doesn't sound like a blast or multi-shot weapon to me. As for your argument against Strength 10 AP1, lets start with another Epic analogue and finish with 40K, Anti-tank of a standard lascannon in Epic is AT5+, AT of a Rapier AT4+ the same as twin-linked Lascannons, Demolisher cannons (oddly enough these are Strength 10 AP2 Ordnance in 40K). Based on that alone it doesn't sound like Strength 10 AP1 Heavy 1, Twin-linked (roll 2D6 and pick the highest for Armour Penetration) is at all out of the question, then theres also the fact that the last official 40K stats for the weapon made it Strength 10 AP1 Heavy 1, Twin-linked.

Do I need to explain any of that again?

Indeed, such a statement would imply a blast template of some kind, a shorter range than a lascannon, and that this is a secondary use- and a secondary fire mode.

Which would imply the only fire mode was blast since no mention is made of any other kind of firing, hence no secondary fire mode meaning you still missed the mark.

And Im not putting words in your mouth- you said we cant change anything. Well right now theres nothing in the current C:DA that suggests they have access to rapiers anyways, nor are any of the variant landraiders in IA:Update mentioned, etc. If you change anything in the book, anything at all from a single profile to how a word is phrased you have changed their intellectual property.

You claim you're not putting words in my mouth and then proceed to do just that, even going so far as to misread what I'd said.

I can understand wanting to stay close to the fluff, but the idea that we cant redo what GW has done doesnt make any sense. And thats what you said right here:

Thats not at all what I was saying...

Its their IP/setting, they've set/defined the rules/facts and are free to change them, I'm not so entitled as to believe I can force them to make whatever changes I want just because I make those changes.

You even quoted it right here and yet you still managed to misread it. If you hadn't quoted/read it out of context that would've helped, since the sentence following the one you quoted makes it even clearer what I was actually talking about, as does the remainder of the message.

If thats not what you meant than I ask you to please in the future to not use such strong words unless your going to make sure theyve been clarified for the rest of us who cannot read your mind.

You conveniently quoted the relevant text already, but I'll repeat it just so its crystal clear for you this time, and I'll even lead you through it this time (since thats apparently necessary)...

Its their IP/setting, they've set/defined the rules/facts and are free to change them, I'm not so entitled as to believe I can force them to make whatever changes I want just because I make those changes.

Subject of sentence in bold, their IP/setting, clause referring to that subject in italic, they've set defined the rules/facts (of that IP/setting) this bracketed piece is implicit, but apparently still needs to be mentioned for some, pretty clear cut really. I would've hoped most people wouldn't need things spelled out to them like children, but perhaps I was wrong in that thinking.

Edited by MadDoc, 07 April 2011 - 11:09 AM.

[shabbadoo]

It could be an massive laser with a multi-shot option, or a massive laser with a spread pattern that roasts an area, so a blast template. Or even both.

Part of the reason for this project is to do something that GW would do; not as if we don't have carte blanche to do what we want to with things anyways(just as it is with GW). And, it could still be called a Rapier Laser Destroyer.

"In the latter part of the 40th millenium, the Dark Angels recovered a working model of a modified Rapier Laser Destroyer from a renegade Techpriest allied to one of The Fallen. This new pattern of Rapier Laser Destroyer is capable of firing in an unfocused area-affecting mode and a multi-shot burst mode, in addition to the usual, devastatingly effective focused mode. The Dark Angels' Techmarines have modified the weapon to fit the standard Thunderfire Cannon carriage, and it is now fielded regularly by all of The Unforgiven Chapters in situations where more static heavy support is deemed useful."

http://www.comicbook...hazam_LogoA.gif


Or it could be called something different, like Rapier Laser Destructor. The initial idea simply prompts other ideas to make the weapon more useful so as to compete for choice with the more standard Thunderfire Cannon(which is itself already competing with the Whirlwind points/effectiveness/survivability-wise). Two weapon options for the artillery chassis would also fit nicely in a plastic set. This is also something that GW could potentially do.

Edited by Brother Tyler, 07 April 2011 - 09:18 PM.
Hot-linked image turned into a link.

[Brother_Darius]

Sounds both good and reasonable to me. I even like the fluff extension

[Grey Mage]

Indeed, such a statement would imply a blast template of some kind, a shorter range than a lascannon, and that this is a secondary use- and a secondary fire mode.

Which would imply the only fire mode was blast since no mention is made of any other kind of firing, hence no secondary fire mode meaning you still missed the mark.

No, it sounds like a blast weapon to me from that quote. The standard fluff about it says it focuses the beams together for devastating affect- that would be where the S 10 AP 1 comes from. Thats two different descriptions and hence two different firing modes.

Now, can you be a little less high strung please?

[MadDoc]

@shabbadoo - Why do we need to intrinsically alter the characteristics of an established weapon (explaining it away as using traitor tech at that)? When making a new totally seperate weapon allows for the inclusion of your dual mode multi-shot lascannon without needing to trample on the existing background.

Over in the Devastator thread you're against changing already defined units (with a simple addition which doesn't actually break any background and has actually been an option in the past), but here you're fine with making background breaking alterations to the core properties of an established weapon. Whats the deal?

Indeed, such a statement would imply a blast template of some kind, a shorter range than a lascannon, and that this is a secondary use- and a secondary fire mode.

Which would imply the only fire mode was blast since no mention is made of any other kind of firing, hence no secondary fire mode meaning you still missed the mark.

No, it sounds like a blast weapon to me from that quote. The standard fluff about it says it focuses the beams together for devastating affect- that would be where the S 10 AP 1 comes from. Thats two different descriptions and hence two different firing modes.

So you're going to ignore the fact that your chosen quote makes it quite clear that the "spread slightly" blast is the only fire mode the weapon has, and then try and mix it with other sources which also make it clear that the Rapier only fires in one way, and then try arguing that by selectively mixing out of context aspects of those completely contradictory sources you've proved the existance of alternate fire modes?

You cannot be serious.

You post the above fallacious argument, and yet completely ignored the other points I raised in my post. What should I take from that? That you did so because you couldn't refute any of the points I made? You introduced Epic to try and prove something, I refuted that using Epic and 40K evidence (rules and you're own fluff quote, you need any additional fully contextualised background references just ask), the least you could do is either try and refute what I'd written, or if you couldn't, admit it.

Lets try again. You tell me, if its a blast weapon then how come its AP6+ and not the AP5+ minimum that every non-barrage blast weapon in Epic has? Even missile launchers are AP5+, which in 40K equates to their anti-personnel Frag missiles (Strength 4 AP6 Heavy 1, Blast), meaning you're purported alt fire mode would have to be less effective against infantry than that. But, since the extract you quoted makes it clear that it has only one mode of fire, then in order for the Rapiers AP6+ and AT4+ to mesh the AP6+ has to somehow be from a minimum Strength 9 shot (more likely 10 since thats the hallmark we have for the Rapiers 40K stats) meaning it can't be a blast weapon, as a Strength 10 AP1 blast weapon is going to be hellishly more effective against infantry than a frag missile (and thus far better than the ML's AP5+ let alone the paltry AP6+ the Rapier has). Then how does the AP6+ fit you might ask? It couldn't possibly be that it simply represents the single super powerful anti-armour las shot punching through multiple soft targets/infantry without impediment, hence its very limited anti-personnel value (one beam (even made up of four convergent beams) isn't going to be great at taking out multiple small disparate targets unless you get lucky and they're in the right place), now could it?

Also, just to head this off since I can see somebody trying to bring it up, having both an AP and AT value in Epic does not equate to possessing multiple fire modes, some such weapons do have them (the above mentioned missile launchers) but there are far more single fire mode weapons that have both AP & AT values - Assault cannon, Autocannon (including the AA Hydra autocannon), Battle cannon, Big shootas, Deathwind launcher, Demolisher cannon, Earthshaker cannon, Multilaser, Ork Big gun, Ork Flak gun, Plasma guns, Plasma cannon, Scatter laser, Thudd gun, Vanquisher battle cannon, to name but a few (you may also want to note that the majority of these also happen not to be blast weapons).

Now, can you be a little less high strung please?

I'll make you a deal, you try not to mix selective parts of contradictory sources (presented out of context) and present it as "proof" again, and I'll try and not get quite so annoyed with people blithely ignoring the background or espousing fanfic/fan speculation as actual background... ok?

Edited by MadDoc, 08 April 2011 - 02:08 AM.

[Grey Mage]

Indeed, such a statement would imply a blast template of some kind, a shorter range than a lascannon, and that this is a secondary use- and a secondary fire mode.

Which would imply the only fire mode was blast since no mention is made of any other kind of firing, hence no secondary fire mode meaning you still missed the mark.

No, it sounds like a blast weapon to me from that quote. The standard fluff about it says it focuses the beams together for devastating affect- that would be where the S 10 AP 1 comes from. Thats two different descriptions and hence two different firing modes.

So you're going to ignore the fact that your chosen quote makes it quite clear that the "spread slightly" blast is the only fire mode the weapon has, and then try and mix it with other sources which also make it clear that the Rapier only fires in one way, and then try arguing that by selectively mixing out of context aspects of those completely contradictory sources you've proved the existance of alternate fire modes?

You cannot be serious.

Completely serious.

Since one source talks about them being focused, and good against tanks while the other says unfocused and good against infantry- that tells me it has 2 different ways it can be used. Most people would call those firing modes.

You post the above fallacious argument, and yet completely ignored the other points I raised in my post. What should I take from that? That you did so because you couldn't refute any of the points I made? You introduced Epic to try and prove something, I refuted that using Epic and 40K evidence (rules and you're own fluff quote, you need any additional fully contextualised background references just ask), the least you could do is either try and refute what I'd written, or if you couldn't, admit it.

I didnt think it was worth refuting your angry statements over my apparent misinterpretation of your text. In fact, I felt that my argument cut to the heart of the matter- the rest of it is irrelevent because I could show in the fluff that this was feasible, and your argument was that the fluff did not support this.

Lets try again. You tell me, if its a blast weapon then how come its AP6+ and not the AP5+ minimum that every non-barrage blast weapon in Epic has? Even missile launchers are AP5+, which in 40K equates to their anti-personnel Frag missiles (Strength 4 AP6 Heavy 1, Blast), meaning you're purported alt fire mode would have to be less effective against infantry than that. But, since the extract you quoted makes it clear that it has only one mode of fire, then in order for the Rapiers AP6+ and AT4+ to mesh the AP6+ has to somehow be from a minimum Strength 9 shot (more likely 10 since thats the hallmark we have for the Rapiers 40K stats) meaning it can't be a blast weapon, as a Strength 10 AP1 blast weapon is going to be hellishly more effective against infantry than a frag missile (and thus far better than the ML's AP5+ let alone the paltry AP6+ the Rapier has). Then how does the AP6+ fit you might ask? It couldn't possibly be that it simply represents the single super powerful anti-armour las shot punching through multiple soft targets/infantry without impediment, hence its very limited anti-personnel value (one beam (even made up of four convergent beams) isn't going to be great at taking out multiple small disparate targets unless you get lucky and they're in the right place), now could it?

Because epic has good points and bad points- the attack value system is uses is incredibly rough, and incredibly variable. Sometimes things line up perfectly with 40k and apocalypse, somethings they dont. So while its possible that the AP 6 represents cutting down a straight swath of infantry... the fluff presented there doesnt support that idea. Instead it specificly states its a capable anti-infantry weapon.

Also, just to head this off since I can see somebody trying to bring it up, having both an AP and AT value in Epic does not equate to possessing multiple fire modes, some such weapons do have them (the above mentioned missile launchers) but there are far more single fire mode weapons that have both AP & AT values - Assault cannon, Autocannon (including the AA Hydra autocannon), Battle cannon, Big shootas, Deathwind launcher, Demolisher cannon, Earthshaker cannon, Multilaser, Ork Big gun, Ork Flak gun, Plasma guns, Plasma cannon, Scatter laser, Thudd gun, Vanquisher battle cannon, to name but a few (you may also want to note that the majority of these also happen not to be blast weapons).

As noted, Epic has its good points and its bad points when we want to make rules comparisons. The fluff however needs no translation between scales, and was quite straightforward.

Now, can you be a little less high strung please?

I'll make you a deal, you try not to mix selective parts of contradictory sources (presented out of context) and present it as "proof" again, and I'll try and not get quite so annoyed with people blithely ignoring the background or espousing fanfic/fan speculation as actual background... ok?

Fine, I have refuted all of your arguments. I have basicly stated the same thing in several places, but I wouldnt want you to think I was somehow incapable, or in denial of your correctness- or lack thereof- when that is not the case. This isnt competitive debate, or law, so I figured Id save us both time and everyone alot of extra reading by cutting to the chase.

Fluff 1- states its great at killing tanks. There are rules to support this, and we are talking about directly copying it.
Fluff 2- states its good at taking down infantry. There are not rules yet to support this, and we should talk about making them.

Edited by Grey Mage, 08 April 2011 - 09:05 AM.

[shabbadoo]

@shabbadoo - Why do we need to intrinsically alter the characteristics of an established weapon (explaining it away as using traitor tech at that)? When making a new totally separate weapon allows for the inclusion of your dual mode multi-shot lascannon without needing to trample on the existing background.

Why not if it serves a viable purpose unit-wise, is identifiable in model form due to its history, and it fits the model form well? That's every reason why it should be done.

Over in the Devastator thread you're against changing already defined units (with a simple addition which doesn't actually break any background and has actually been an option in the past), but here you're fine with making background breaking alterations to the core properties of an established weapon. Whats the deal?

You are incorrectly equating one with the other by comparing green apples and watermelons. I have no problem altering a single, seldom used weapon. What I do have a problem with is the idea of altering what is the definitive commonality among the the Codex Astartes adherent Chapters- the building block units. One seldom used weapon being altered is not definitive of much of anything, while altering the building block units of what completely defines Space Marine Chapters is. Here are two statements to compare:

"OMG! They altered the Rapier Laser Destroyer. These are no long Dark Angels so far I am concerned."

"OMG! They altered the Tactical Squads, Assault Squads, Devastator Squads and Scout Squads. These are no longer Dark Angels so far as I am concerned."

See the difference? Altering a single weapon does not even remotely compare to altering the core units of the Chapter. I am more for adding new and unique units rather than turning upside down every single thing that is established. Doesn't mean I don't allow for a bit of wiggle room though. The Rapier is an old dog that could do with some new tricks, rather than just be an Imperial Railgun. It also doesn't exist in any core codex, so why not change it to be more varied in its use, and the fluff does indeed state that it is, even though the rules never were written to represent that in-game. I am sure in EPIC that a Rapier battery could carve up an Infantry unit rather well(big laser cannons will do that), instead of just doing the most minimal of damage(i.e. "I totally pasted that one guardsman out of 600 with my uber death machine! Woot!" "Um..the other 599 are rather pissed off that you killed their 12 year old fife player. Perhaps we should...um...run away now?"). The broad fire mode is very much worth looking into.

Edited by shabbadoo, 08 April 2011 - 10:48 AM.