V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish |
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish  Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
Isnt the Ticonderoga (sp?) class ship the US guided missile platform?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Honda
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:35 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas
|
|
AX-10 I though stood for Attack Xenos 10 and was a joke based on the warthog A-10.
Whats the equivalent US designation for a vehicle carrying missiles?
|
The only "near" equivalent, would be the MRLS (Multiple Rocket Launching System).
So, that's not going to work. However, if we assumed AX to equate to Attack Xenos, then we could make up any numerical trailer we wanted.
_________________
Honda
"Remember Taros? We do"
- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
|
I thought they had humvee's/jeeps/IFV's with a couple of wire guided anti tanks missiles on? Certainly the brits do.
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:36 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I think there is a Bradley varient with a guided missile system. Can't remember the name though. (M115A or something like that). I'm sure someone here can tell us though.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The_Real_Chris
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:48 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
|
So MX-115A or something? 
But X could stand for eXperimental and the forgeworld chap in question having a wind up (Then again they are are Imperial tank lovers!)
_________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 5:58 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
How about bringing back the White Shark name for this?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
|
Aye, the Ticonderoga class of missile cruisers is a U.S. missile platform. The idea is to take a Spruance class ship and equip it with missiles and various extras.
On land, there's at least the MRLS (rocket/missile arty) and the Linebacker (Stinger AA missile), both based on the M2 Bradley platform.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:53 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
|
| Quote (Hena @ 12 Mar. 2006 (09:48)) | @HecklerMD
Some small things.
1) For that to be support craft, drop the missile pods. Those are again short ranged, no need for others kind of weapons. Those variable missiles are quite nasty by themselves.
2) Be fair with pricing, atleast 250 a piece (perhaps more). Or 450 a pair. Those things are way better than any superheavy from guard. Compare them to baneblades for effectiveness to get the price range right.
But I liked the idea of the last one. Although I would drop the shots to 3 MW and 6 (or 5) AP. Because with these numbers you starting to make the Support Crafts obsolete with this beast. |
2 IG SHTs with the same 16.6% discount:
400 x .166 =66.4, rounded to 50 or 75
2 IG SHTs would probablly be costed at 325-350, same as us or less.
We have more focused firepower than a BB, and more balanced firepower than a Shadowsword, but we are dependant on other units MLs for optimum performance, and we consume a contingent slot.
I want to test it as it is before making further adjustments.
P.S. M113 is a vietnam-era apc, simillar to a SM Rhino but with even less firepower, really nothing like this unit. As stated above, closest US land vehicles are
HIMARS and MLRS, which are the same missile and rocket systems mounted on wheeled and tracked vehicles respectivley. The MLRS is mounted on a very-very-very modified version of the M2/M3 Bradley chassis, while the HIMARS is mounted on what amounts to a big truck. I worked extensivley with both types while I was in the Army, I was a 13P, which is/was MLRS Fire Direction Spec. Which probablly explains why I'm drawn to units like this and like the Stingray. 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:16 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
So - is this it?
Scorpionfish
Type ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Speed ? ? ? Armor ? ? CC ? ? FF
War Engine ? ? ? ?25cm ? ? ? ? ?5+ ? ? ? ?6+ ? ? 6+
Variable Munitions Launcher ? ? ?75cm ?4xMW6+ ? ? ? Guided Missiles
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? OR
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?75cm ?8xAP5+ ? ? ? ? ?Guided Missiles, Ignore Cover
2x Twin Linked Missile Pod ? ? ? ?45cm ?AT4+/AP4+
Damage Capacity 3. ?Critical Hit Effect: ?Munitions Store is hit, vehicle explodes. ?All Units within 5CM suffer 1 hit on a D6 roll of 6.
Notes: ?Skimmer, Reinforced Armor.
|
Note, we'll need a special rule regarding a VML = may fire either ordinance system per turn, but not both.
What do the points look like... I have a feeling they will be ultimately valued somewhere inbetween 325 - 375 for two of them.
So, how about
2x Scorpionfish = 350?
SC upgrade is to put the SC on board one of these things for +100 points?
I like the way this is going gents.
Cheers,
_________________
Rob
|
| Top |
|
|
|
HecklerMD
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:14 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 am
Posts: 201
|
|
Note, we'll need a special rule regarding a VML |
No, we wont. At most, something in the notes below the unit entry, but not a "Special Rule"
What do the points look like... |
Covered one page back.
Er, make that two pages back.
|
clausewitz
|
Post subject: V4.4 - Scorpionfish and Dragonfish Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:03 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
|
|
I like the direction this is going.
However, I think that 8x AP5+, ignore cover is too many shots for this vehicle. With two of these in the formation thats 16 shots. It seems like too many, thats more like a titans firepower. (On sustain fire thats like a Warlord with 4x Gatling Blasters)
I realise that the 8x AP shots is to balance out the 4x MW shots, but IMO its too many. I think we should start with 6 AP shots, thats still better than shooting the MWs at infantry that have a save below that of SMs (especially with ignore cover too).
Regards cost, the "current" Scorpionfish are 200 points each. I would say that this new design is "better" than the old one (i.e. more useful, more firepower), but we are looking at lowering the cost? Should we perhaps err on the side of caution and stick to 200 points each?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
