Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 356

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#19 » Jun 29 2017 01:28

Ye.. you can power those weapons from drones. How small and light the power source powering those weapons will be, compared to a freaking Tigershark hull. Lowering balistic skill would make sence though, Railgun does have "backlash" (or shock from weapon, no idea if google's translation is good) from firing, as it's a kinetic weapon.

BillyBones
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 97

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#20 » Jun 29 2017 01:44

Gragagrogog wrote:Ye.. you can power those weapons from drones. How small and light the power source powering those weapons will be, compared to a freaking Tigershark hull. Lowering balistic skill would make sence though, Railgun does have "backlash" (or shock from weapon, no idea if google's translation is good) from firing, as it's a kinetic weapon.


Its called recoil ;-)

User avatar
shasocastris
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 964
Contact:

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#21 » Jun 29 2017 09:49

BillyBones wrote:Well that is exactely my pointthe other weapons are so energetically insignificant compared to the main guns, that firing them would have zero impact on the main weapons. on the other hand steady and level flight might be necessary to fire these babies, hence it would make sence to limit the movement to the minimal value in order to fire.


That's not necessarily true. If a path is open to the weapons, you are draining the voltage of your power source (assuming they use anything like electricity...) no matter what the current is. So it's not unfeasible that they would need to close the relays to the secondary weapons in order to fire the primary guns. Or rather, I can imagine that, while the power source on a normal tigershark has enough juice to power everything simultaneously, the Tau realized that it's not quite enough to do so on an AX-1-0, so they had to compensate somehow.

At any rate, if that's what FW says, that's what FW says. Perhaps we can get a points adjustment so we aren't paying a 68 pt tax. It would also be nice to be able to use seeker missiles...

Cheers!

User avatar
Glarblar
Shas'Saal
Posts: 225

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#22 » Jun 29 2017 10:30

Since this post has gotten into Tau systems, electrics and manufacturing :biggrin: I'd like to make comparisons between the TS AX-1-0 and the TS F-B.

The TS F-B can has either a 14 slot drone compartment or 2 skyspear missile racks. So to 'power' the magnets that run the 2 Macro Railguns of the AX-1-0 are about that size (Power and Ammunition rather). Now, let's look at the other weapon systems: 2 burst cannons and 2 missile pods.

Burst Cannons are your standard that you equip to Stealth Suits or Crisis suits. I think based on the modularity of the Tau weapons they would be self contained, even infantry weapons don't require extra power to fire.

and Missile pods I would assume are much the same way, the only power they need to be told to activate.

They shouldn't be deriving power from the batteries that the Macro Railgun uses, so there must be some other reason.

Well, we're adding a completely new system on to the TS that probably requires much more concentration to fire than the swiftstrike railgun on the TS F-B. The Tau probably had to add other weapons panel in the cockpit apart from the one used to fire the auxiliary weapons.

I would then assume that the reason it can only fire the Macro Railgun is because the system being so intricate needs complete focus in monitoring for the Gunner to fire, and the BC and MP were never designed to be remotely fired by drones.

Although, firing other weapons at a BS of 5+ may be a good remedy to not being able to fire at all?

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#23 » Jun 29 2017 01:47

There's also additional engine output you might need if your weapon has more recoil.

For the same reason they could have also halved its movement, but this rule they have for macro weapons is more universally applicable.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2902

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#24 » Jun 29 2017 01:51

Another explanation would be that they simply didn't design it perfectly so the power distribution isn't optimal and there's still room for improvement. Personally I like the negative to-hit modifier for the secondary weapons or the limitation to move only at minimum distance better.

It's really not hard to find an explanation, what's more interesting though is how it works on the table and there I don't see me ever using the Missile Pods and Burst Cannons until VERY late in the game if I managed to get rid of all tough targets.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 955

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#25 » Jun 29 2017 08:36

Glarblar wrote:I would then assume that the reason it can only fire the Macro Railgun is because the system being so intricate needs complete focus in monitoring for the Gunner to fire, and the BC and MP were never designed to be remotely fired by drones.

Although, firing other weapons at a BS of 5+ may be a good remedy to not being able to fire at all?


But we have Heavy Gun Drones and MP drones...

User avatar
Gragagrogog
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 356

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#26 » Jun 29 2017 11:32

Overheal wrote:There's also additional engine output you might need if your weapon has more recoil.

For the same reason they could have also halved its movement, but this rule they have for macro weapons is more universally applicable.


Nah, if the recoil was so strong that it would halve "the movement", it would kill the crew in the process. Also, in contrast to ie. lascannon, railgun requires the whole energy to be "consumed" in incredibly short burst. That sugests having to store it temporarily anyway in order to have it working in the first place. If you could power the railgun directly, it would only cause blackout for a fraction of a second.

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 177

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#27 » Jun 30 2017 12:48

Gragagrogog wrote:
Overheal wrote:There's also additional engine output you might need if your weapon has more recoil.

For the same reason they could have also halved its movement, but this rule they have for macro weapons is more universally applicable.


Nah, if the recoil was so strong that it would halve "the movement", it would kill the crew in the process. Also, in contrast to ie. lascannon, railgun requires the whole energy to be "consumed" in incredibly short burst. That sugests having to store it temporarily anyway in order to have it working in the first place. If you could power the railgun directly, it would only cause blackout for a fraction of a second.

Gonna go Mech Engineer on this, and I don't know much about gun terminology, but the slide/recoiling piece could be dampened over a less-than-instantaneous impulse. eg if the head of the railgun recoiled back into the main mechanism and was slowed down by electromagnetic dampening and/or a spring force, rather than slamming into the system/having no slide at all. Commonly referred to as recoil buffering.

User avatar
Glarblar
Shas'Saal
Posts: 225

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#28 » Jun 30 2017 01:22

So there will be recoil but there are a few things we need to consider that differentiate a Railgun from a common rifle:

1) Velocity: Railgun muzzle velocity is significantly higher than a rifle. For comparison an AK-47 is 715 m/s while the US Navy prototype is 2,520 m/s. Railguns can therefore use smaller mass rounds to get the same amount of force impact.

2) Impulse: a traditional rifle expends all its energy at once, the gun powder ignition, and it is the resulting expanding gases which propels it through the barrel. It's fastest speed is at ignition and it slows down from there, resulting in more recoil. A Railgun works the opposite way, magnets propel the slug up to it's maximum velocity at the muzzle, resulting is a lot less recoil.

3) Force/Mass conservation: A Tigershark is massive compared to the mass of the projectile it fires, probably thousands of times over what a bullet weights compared to a rifle. Therefore you are going to have thousands of times less recoil compared to firing a rifle (sorry for the poor explanation, getting a tad tired).

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1012

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#29 » Jun 30 2017 02:34

Real world physics, a railgun is going to have much less recoil than a conventional gas expansion weapon of similar power, allowing for much more powerful weapons to be mounted on the same platform.

Warhammer40k physics, the railgun is shooting at targets that can shrug off nuclear blasts and the impact of small asteroids, so its output power (and therefore recoil power) fit that scale. Not to mention the power supply required to fire such a weapon is probably greater than that required to light a major modern city for a decade.

This is why the weapon in question was originally mounted on the Manta and putting it on Tigersharks was a stopgap measure to counter the threat of Imperium Titans during the Taros campaign. It worked well enough that they continued to use them.

So yes, a rule that makes it difficult for the Tigershark to fire heavy railguns makes perfect sense to me. The way they have chosen to implement that rule could use some work (I think Macro weapons should have been straight lethal wounds, but a penalty to hit non titanic targets and a further penalty to hit for non-titanic shooters) but there being a penalty for the Tigershark to use the heavy railgun is totally sensible.

User avatar
Elphiel
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 87
Contact:

Re: Tigershark AX-1-0 FW FAQ

Post#30 » Jun 30 2017 04:02

Keep in mind that the whole lower compartment of the TS F-B is removed and replaced with additional power supply for the AX 1-0 Railguns. So The Railgun upgrade comes with its own dedicated power supply separate from the main power supply for flight.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests