gendoikari87 wrote:No they won't, points to physics books

So physics books defines what a void shield is? Oh wait no they don't.

The very name of the shields-- "void" shields-- indicates this much, because "void" is the term used for space in 40k (for example, someone born on a space ship / space station is called "void-born"). Space Ships need to be protected against radiation amongst other things, and given the harmful effects of warp-based travel, void-shields would need to be extremely strong (along with their gellar fields) to ensure no severe damage to the ship upon entry to that forsaken realm. What quack physics book do you have that discusses this fictional energy field?

IvanTih wrote:I wasn't reffering to Cyclonc torpedoes,but to combined output of all weapons on the broadside(weapon batteries,lances,non cyclonic torpedoes ).
Sustained firepower or salvo and it wasn't done by one ship.

"Unfortunately those torpeoes work on chain reaction(and they can carry a variety of payloads),well the Nemesis says that Vengeful Spirit had warstrikes capable of atomising continets in single shots and energy cannon capable of boiling oceans(and those weapons were restrain when used against one planet,otherwise they would destroy it totally with cyclonic torpedoes)." -your quote - emphasis mine.



At no time was I refering to Cyclonic Torpedoes. If it was your intent for your original statement to convey that "a fleet of ships performing a sustained bombardment can eventually atomise a continent", I think that you should be a bit more clear in your wording.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:The very name of the shields-- "void" shields-- indicates this much, because "void" is the term used for space in 40k (for example, someone born on a space ship / space station is called "void-born"). Space Ships need to be protected against radiation amongst other things, and given the harmful effects of warp-based travel, void-shields would need to be extremely strong (along with their gellar fields) to ensure no severe damage to the ship upon entry to that forsaken realm. What quack physics book do you have that discusses this fictional energy field?

Considering that GW never fully explains the extent of the Void shield's capabilities, what you are asking is akin to forcing a definitive proof regarding whether God can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift, given that His powers are not explicitly defined, don't conform to the laws of nature and are stated to be limitless.

IIRC, supposedly a single broadside bombardment of a battleship class vessel could destroy a small continent. But these are massive and rare vehicles, and it's more efficient to use many small vehicles I would think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:Considering that GW never fully explains the extent of the Void shield's capabilities, what you are asking is akin to forcing a definitive proof regarding whether God can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift

No, this is a respectable debate, not theology.

Insert someone taking this too seriously.

Melissia wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:No they won't, points to physics books

So physics books defines what a void shield is? Oh wait no they don't.

The very name of the shields-- "void" shields-- indicates this much, because "void" is the term used for space in 40k (for example, someone born on a space ship / space station is called "void-born"). Space Ships need to be protected against radiation amongst other things, and given the harmful effects of warp-based travel, void-shields would need to be extremely strong (along with their gellar fields) to ensure no severe damage to the ship upon entry to that forsaken realm. What quack physics book do you have that discusses this fictional energy field?

Look i'm going to explain this slowly.

Visible light, X-rays, and Gamma rays (the last two of which are radiation) are all the same thing with different energies.

Visible light<X-rays><Gamma Rays

If something is transparant to one wavelength of light it is to all shorter wavelengths.

Wavelengths and energy of the photon are inversely proportional

Void shilds are transparant to visible light

therefore void shields don't block out radiation. If anything does it's what the ships are made from. Possibly the adamantium or a lead lining. >


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If Void shields can defend against those they should be able to block radiation... unless there is some specific explanation saying otherwise.

There is a HUGE difference between defending against Plasma, and Radiation. A simple Electric field will repel Plasma, while the photon is not charged, and will remain unaffected by the field. You're basically talking about tomatos and iguanas here... two completely different things, which require completely different forms of protection.

[edit, off-topic]

ChrisWWII wrote:I think Melissia is going for a Occam's Razor explanation. Basically, we have two possibilities: 1) Bolters efficiencey decreases at close range, or 2) Bolters are equally effective throughout their entire range.

Option 2 is the less complicated explanation, as it has fewer things to prove. As such, we go with 2 until someone can definitively prove 1.

http://www.deathwind.com/history.htm

Bolters are said to have a small explosive charge that kicks them out of their barrel. Otherwise they wouldn't make any sound when firing except a silent klick of the hammer and a silent "whoosh" Therefore it already has a base velocity which constantly grows until the fuel is out, then it behaves like an ordinary bullet i suppose. The system does not work like a TOW missile, where the initial charge lobs the missile out of the launchtube, then it falls down a little (shooter has to be aware of that) and the main engine starts. The engine starts immediately together with the small explosion.
And it's not like that the thing takes 7s to reach 100m/s. It's also pretty clever as the gyrojet munition had problems if the rocketbullet somehow got stuck in the barrel, it just hisses it's entire fuel into oblivion and remains in the barrel.

The main strength of the bolt ammunition is not because of their high velocity but because of their explosive i think. If the bullet really was not fast enough at close range to have noticeable velocity, you would still have the explosive (a 20mm projectile...

so it is not 1 or 2 ... it is 3) effective at close range but even more effective at long range (until fuel runs out) =P

In regard of Heavy bolters - if i would make them i think the bullet would be only slightly large then 20mm bolter round, perhaps 25mm.

Void shilds are transparant to visible light

And here we are, living... yet the sun bombs us everyday with death in form of xrays ... not sure where you live but i can see the sun from time to time where i live.

Melissia wrote:

keezus wrote:Considering that GW never fully explains the extent of the Void shield's capabilities, what you are asking is akin to forcing a definitive proof regarding whether God can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift

No, this is a respectable debate, not theology.

You are asking Gendoikari87 to prove that the void shield admits radiation. He tries despite the fact that void shields is a generally un-defined fictional technolgy - where its creators never bothered to state the limits of its performance AND its action relies on a process KNOWN to not follow the laws of our universe. His position is impossible as all it takes to rebutt is: Nuh-uh... that's not how it works - eventually falling back on the "doesn't follow the laws of our universe" arguement. I don't see how the demanding a void shield proof is any different from asking that the God vs. stone be resolved.

Keep wrote:[snip]so it is not 1 or 2 ... it is 3) effective at close range but even more effective at long range (until fuel runs out) =P

Nope, it requires penetration to allow the explosive aspect to do the most damage-- it explodes AFTER penetration, not before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:You are asking Gendoikari87 to prove that the void shield admits radiation. He tries despite the fact that void shields is a generally un-defined fictional technolgy - where its creators never bothered to state the limits of its performance AND its action relies on a process KNOWN to not follow the laws of our universe.

Read the black text I put into the post you quoted.

Melissia wrote:

Keep wrote:[snip]so it is not 1 or 2 ... it is 3) effective at close range but even more effective at long range (until fuel runs out) =P

Nope, it requires penetration to allow the explosive aspect to do the most damage-- it explodes AFTER penetration, not before.

So what? if it bounces of something it still explodes. It just has a delay. That doesn't stop it from doing serious damage to a human. I don't want to be a couple of cm next to a 20mm grenade if it explodes...

Keep wrote:http://www.deathwind.com/history.htm

Bolters aren't gyrojet weapons. They have some aspects that are similar, but they are still not gyrojet weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Keep wrote:stop it from doing serious damage to a human. I don't want to be a couple of cm next to a 20mm grenade if it explodes...

Actually, yes, it would. Flak armor is specifically designed to protect against shrapnel and explosive damage. So if a bolter shell didn't penetrate a guardsman's flak armor it'd have its effectiveness GREATLY reduced.

keezus wrote:@Melissia: Flak seems to be a catch all, since CATACHANS are also equipped with flak - and jungle fighter flak armor CLEARLY has less coverage than Cadian flak unless someone wants to claim that the bare arms of the 41st millenium have better ballistics resisting properties than modern bare arms. To claim that wearing flak provides a high degree of protection without acknowledging that the different "patterns" of flak offer varying degrees of coverage constitutes a dishonest arguement - as Catachan flak is clearly less efficient than the Cadian pattern.

Fluff wise, there's a reason that my Catachan Sergeants and officers are the ones who have closed flak vests. They live long enough to be promoted.

Melissia wrote:Read the black text I put into the post you quoted.

Maybe I lack reading comprehension. The above provides a relevant counterpoint regarding demands for proofs of the unprovable... How?

In Dark Heresy, attempting to wear Catachan style flak armor has a lower level of protective value, and protects less of the body. Fun times and all that.

Melissia wrote:

Keep wrote:stop it from doing serious damage to a human. I don't want to be a couple of cm next to a 20mm grenade if it explodes...

Actually, yes, it would. Flak armor is specifically designed to protect against shrapnel and explosive damage. So if a bolter shell didn't penetrate a guardsman's flak armor it'd have its effectiveness GREATLY reduced.

That is a poor arguement as bolters are known to be able to penetrate power armor (ref: Any space marine vs. traitor marine fight). If bolt shells can penetrate power armor, flak armor isn't going to reduce the kinetic force enough to prevent the round from shredding the human body behind - even without the explosive charge.

keezus wrote:Maybe I lack reading comprehension. The above provides a relevant counterpoint regarding demands for proofs of the unprovable... How?

Because I'm not taking the argument seriously enough to care.

Actually, yes, it would. Flak armor is specifically designed to protect against shrapnel and explosive damage. So if a bolter shell didn't penetrate a guardsman's flak armor it'd have its effectiveness GREATLY reduced.

You are talking of cadian "flak armor" to start with. Second - if you get hit by a bullet and are lucky so it does not penetrate your armor there is still the kinetic energy the thing has. It's like the kick of a donkey or even worse (20mm will be even worse). If your internal organs are not hurt by that (rib cage broken, etc) you are really lucky.
Now you have an explosion. Right at your chest area. Guard troopers have chest armor and Helmets. They lack face protection, throat protection, full arm protection, leg protection, groin protection,etc. The shrapnells can get everywhere. The heat does get everywhere that is not chest-plate.
Just because the rulebook says 5+ saving throw that does not mean his clothes are as tough as his chestplate in "real" terms.

There is no way a common bodyarmor worn without help of external skeleton or something like that can protect you against the devestating impact of a 20mm cannon. I served in a Wiesel 1 MK&TOW unit, believe me, you don't want to be on the recieving end.

keezus wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Keep wrote:stop it from doing serious damage to a human. I don't want to be a couple of cm next to a 20mm grenade if it explodes...

Actually, yes, it would. Flak armor is specifically designed to protect against shrapnel and explosive damage. So if a bolter shell didn't penetrate a guardsman's flak armor it'd have its effectiveness GREATLY reduced.

That is a poor arguement as bolters are known to be able to penetrate power armor (ref: Any space marine vs. traitor marine fight). If bolt shells can penetrate power armor, flak armor isn't going to reduce the kinetic force enough to prevent the round from shredding the human body behind - even without the explosive charge.

Quit trying to weasel-word your way out of the question.

You stated that the bolter shell would do damage regardless of if it penetrated, to which I pointed out a fact about flak armor-- that it is more resistant to blasts and shrapnel. Said resistance is not represented in tabletop because of rules complexity issues, but it's still there. In fact, against grenades, flak armor is about as good as light carapace armor. If a bolter shell did not penetrate, it would do very little damage to a guardsman in flak armor because the flak armor is designed specifically to absorb the blasts and shrapnel that commonly takes out soldiers in a warzone.

But the fact that it does penetrate BEFORE exploding means that it impacts with the kinetic force and general shape to reliably (~100% of the time) get through body armor that is quite a bit better than modern body armor. Bolter shells have very good penetrative qualities, which is the very reason that they are able to do such high damage in the first place-- by penetrating through armor and flesh, and exploding within a target. Simply exploding outside the target would allow the armor to protect the wearer far better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Keep wrote:You are talking of cadian "flak armor" to start with.

No.

I am talking about flak armor. There are aesthetic variations of flak armor and variations depending on how light/heavy it is, but all flak armor have these qualities.

Just because it was designed to protect against shrapnel does not mean you are invulnerable to it. Shrapnell will still be able to penetrate, depending on size, kenetic energy and shape and a lot of other stuff.
Kevlar vests are also designed to protect against shrapnel.
Yet it won't stop the fragments of an artillery shell that explodes next to you 2m away. Nor does it stop the fragments you get into your legs and arms.

I think you have a false impression of body armor in general. It does protect vital organs to have the chance to survive something that would be lethal otherwise. It does not mean you can just shrug it of. You are still hurt (propably serious) if it hits you hard enough. And you may not be able to continue fighting with that injury for a certain period of time or even die without beeing 'penetrated' by the projectile

Bolters aren't gyrojet weapons. They have some aspects that are similar, but they are still not gyrojet weapons.

gyrojet stands for Bullets that are not accellerated by an explosive charge but by continuous burning of some sort of fuel. Like a rocket.

If it is not a combination of gyrojet (rocket) and conventional bullet, what is it then in your opinion?

No, it can't, but it can protect enough to allow the wearer of the armor to get back into the fight after recovering from the impact, or to simply not die from it and instead have a far more minor wound, more often than not. Actually a bolter's explosive nature is fairly small, much less than a grenade to be sure.

Because that's just how armor works in 40k. The tabletop's armor saves and AP values are abstract, but t

"Gyrojet" is a family of weapons that use gyroscopically stabilized rockets as ammunition.

And the fact that it is not a pure rocket is why it is not a gyrojet weapon.

Keep:

1) No, it doesn't mean 'if it doesn't pen the flak armor, yay the Guardsman is unwounded' it means. 'Oh good, the Guardsman has a slightly less chance of dying when it explodes.' There is a difference, you've created a strawman here, what you accuse Melissia of saying was never actually posted.

2) It's a combination of the two. Exactly. That means it's not a gyrojet, it's something else.

Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Keep wrote:You are talking of cadian "flak armor" to start with.

No.
I am talking about flak armor. There are aesthetic variations of flak armor and variations depending on how light/heavy it is, but all flak armor have these qualities.

All flak armor have the quality to offer a better protection then human skin, yeah. If the armor is light and flexible (catachan flak armor) it can't protect as good as a heavy and rigid cadian body armor.
Why do you think soldiers have a solid plate in their kevlar armor (or multiple in case of dragonskin)? Because it distributes the kinetic energy of the small bullet to a larger area. A flexible armor can't do that to the same degree. Unless they are megasupernanoparticle, hardening upon impact. Which would be something eldar could have, but not simple imperial guard that can't build a radio that is smaller then a backpack to be able to comunicate with their commander 5km away.
Imperial Guard is not Hightech. At least not the standard Equipment the common foot slogger gets. And that is the one who takes the bullets after all.

According to Gaunt's Ghosts fluff, those big backpack vox casters? Those are for global communications, and calling up to orbiting ships. DEFINITELY not just a standard radio. They have micro beads for that.

Additionally, can you truly grasp what a technological marvel the lasgun is? A cheap, easy to repair, extremely reliable weapon that can be reloadded by the sun? How is that 'low tech'?

It's entirerly possible that Imperial Guard fatigues do include some kind of hardening feature to better deflect shrapnel and other such things. You seem to be under the impression that the IG is just a modern/WWII army put in the 41st millenium....they're not. The technology given the most basic trooper is more advanced than anything we have today.

The technology given the most basic trooper is more advanced than anything we have today.

Yes if we compare it with today, but not compared with the technology of other races. (Orks aside)

And if we compare it with other races of 40k, they are just about that, a WWII army put in 41st millenium.
I mean, they even still have pintle mounted weapons that have to be manned by the commander (!) of a tank and exposes him to simple bullet fire. Not a remote controlled weaponstation...

The simple imperial guardsman has his rifle, a simple (in comparison) bodyarmor, a helmet, field equipment to survive in the field, entrenching tool. No Nightvision, no scanner, no GPS display, no Infrared vision (or other detection methods that may be possible in 40k), no devices that support him to transport his heavy equipment

Keep wrote:

Void shilds are transparant to visible light

And here we are, living... yet the sun bombs us everyday with death in form of xrays ... not sure where you live but i can see the sun from time to time where i live.

no ozone protects us from ULTRAVIOLET radiation, and it is still partially transparent to that. And it's not because it's reflecting it it's because it's reacting with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Additionally, can you truly grasp what a technological marvel the lasgun is? A cheap, easy to repair, extremely reliable weapon that can be reloadded by the sun? How is that 'low tech'?

Even though the standard lasgun is about a powerful and has a much lower penetrative qualtiy, than a 5.56, I'd still rather have it on a long infitration mission behind enemy lines. It truely is a marvel for what it is, a no supply train weapon. It's precisely what the guard need and want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's entirerly possible that Imperial Guard fatigues do include some kind of hardening feature to better deflect shrapnel and other such things. You seem to be under the impression that the IG is just a modern/WWII army put in the 41st millenium....they're not. The technology given the most basic trooper is more advanced than anything we have today.

.... shotguns you mean, the AA-12 which I'd gather will soon be the standard shotgun in most militaries is basically a ripper gun. This is 40k, some tech is super advanced while some is medival at best. THe guard are a mix of medival, modern and high technologies.

gendoikari87 wrote:.... shotguns you mean, the AA-12 which I'd gather will soon be the standard shotgun in most militaries is basically a ripper gun. This is 40k, some tech is super advanced while some is medival at best. THe guard are a mix of medival, modern and high technologies.

The ripper gun atleast in older fluff was described as a full auto shotgun... thus allowing ogryn to not have the best aim.

Keep wrote:Just because it was designed to protect against shrapnel does not mean you are invulnerable to it. Shrapnell will still be able to penetrate, depending on size, kenetic energy and shape and a lot of other stuff.
Kevlar vests are also designed to protect against shrapnel.
Yet it won't stop the fragments of an artillery shell that explodes next to you 2m away. Nor does it stop the fragments you get into your legs and arms.

I would rather argue blunt force trauma... sometime even when body armor stops penetration, the overall concussive force is still lethal, as even the distributed force localized in the wrong given area can cause bruising of internal organs. Such bruising can occaisionally be lethal. So while the shrapnel is only embedded in armor the shockwave and force that was driving that can be lethal as well. Lethal pressure waves are what make high explosives so much more dangerous to infantry than just fragmentation.

Melissia wrote:IIRC, supposedly a single broadside bombardment of a battleship class vessel could destroy a small continent. But these are massive and rare vehicles, and it's more efficient to use many small vehicles I would think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:Considering that GW never fully explains the extent of the Void shield's capabilities, what you are asking is akin to forcing a definitive proof regarding whether God can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift

No, this is a respectable debate, not theology.

Insert someone taking this too seriously.

They're not so rare,3rd edition states millions of ships and some sources tell us 1 warship in 10 is warship so you get bare minimum of 200,000.
@keezus
Ever heard of Skopios incident,Imperial Navy shatters a large planetoid which has thin atmosphere.Of course that is undefined over what timeframe they do it.
As for the firepower I meant that ships bombarding a planet will kill all life an event which requires at least gigatons to teratons.

@Melissia: re: bolters vs. flak armour - I'm not arguing against the fact that flak armour protects against blasts - only that using a bolter to illustrate this doesn't provide the best example. Ignoring the kinetic damage for now - it is never clearly stated in the rulebooks by what mechanism the explosive charge is triggered - be it a contact trigger, proximity sensor or a delay timer of some sort. Either way, as standard bolt shells are not known to explode until after penetration is what makes the example moot - as the blast protection never comes into play before penetration and the blast didn't add anything except making the guardsman more dead. Even if the bolt's explosive charge is triggered by contact and it fails to penetrate - unless one assumes full body coverage there will still be some damage to unprotected areas. If it exploded near the face or even at the body in the case of a Catachan flak vest - the explosion would probably be fatal. Damage reduction != damage prevention.

Keep wrote:Yes if we compare it with today, but not compared with the technology of other races. (Orks aside)

Orks have some of the most advanced technology in the entire 40k galaxy.

A Bolter shell would smash you to bits with KE if you were wearing FLAK armour. FLAK armour protects against shrapnel at a reasonable range, (Anti aircraft artillery specifically as it was designed in WW2 to protect Bomber crews from being chewed up by German 88's). I would not for example lie on a hand grenade wearing Flak Armour safe in the knowledge that it would protect me from the Schrapnel. Which it might, but the explosion of the Grenade and the local blastwave overpressure would probably kill me if not the explosive ripping apart the armour. FLAK armour is to counter a specific threat, no armour can defend against all types of threat.

If your close enough to a large enough explosion regardless of whether you are wearing a battletank you will get "Pink Misted" as we say in my day job.......

sometime even when body armor stops penetration, the overall concussive force is still lethal,

yup, on that note, do you know what the bomb suits the EOD people use are for? .... open or closed casket.

If your close enough to a large enough explosion regardless of whether you are wearing a battletank you will get "Pink Misted" as we say in my day job.......

you need to talk to some of the people on here, aparantly they helped in the development of the grenade round for the AA12.

That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

Melissia wrote:That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

well now hold on there mellissa, in order for the bolt itself to not be more powerful at longer ranges, it has to assume and exceptionally powerful main charge, so what's wrong with assuming this to be true in the case of the explosive.

gendoikari87 wrote:

Melissia wrote:That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

well now hold on there mellissa, in order for the bolt itself to not be more powerful at longer ranges, it has to assume and exceptionally powerful main charge

False dichotomy. No, it does not.

The explosive used in a bolter shell isn't necessarily that strong, and in fact there's no real reason to believe it is given its depiction in the fluff, its depiction in the rules, and its depiction in every single roleplaying game. What causes the damage is not the power of the explosion, but the combination of penetration and explosion, literally blowing targets up from the inside and leaving a large crater while also causing the bolter shell to get stuck inside fo the target (Because the explosion destroyed the shell's shape too much) or to blow a much more massive exit wound. It isn't a grenade, it isn't a high explosive tank shell. It's never been shown as having a large area of effect or any shrapnel effect. It basically "pops" inside of a person, greatly increasing the damage it does to them, rather than causing some massive fireball-laden explosion.

At a strength of 4?

Also, apparently someone stated that carapace armor is just flak armor that covers more of the body.

No, this most assuredly is not true. Flak armor is layers of an ablative and impact-absorbant material, designed against small arms, shrapnel, and proximity blasts. it's light, efficient to produce and supply, and is a good armor for protecting the wearer against most weapons-- the armies that have basic weapons which penetrate flak armor are all quite rare with the singular exception of Tyranids, and even then only some of their weapons do.

But carapace is "densely layered plates of armaplas, ceramite [same thing used in power armor], or some otherhighly durable material." Carapace is made up of curved, dense, and highly protective plates which are capable of absorbing attacks of most weapons-- though in the fluff, this is somewhat understated. Jurgen's carapace helmet, for example, was shattered by a bolter shell.

stompydakka wrote:At a strength of 4?

see the thing is it has to penetrate in order to do all of that. If it doesn't it's just a low velocity slug, see Mellissa has boxed herself into A logic box here. Either A) the bolt rounds are more powerful at longer ranges due to having a higher velocity or B) the initial charge can also be some magic charge capable of propelling the bolt beyond mach 3 or C) the explosive is both more powerful and explodes on contact. but if the last were true then they'd be a higher str.

Melissia wrote:That assumes that the bolter has an exceptionally powerful explosive, and there is no reason to believe this is true.

What do you mean "exceptionally" - "exceptionally" compared to what? Given the size of the charge shown in this diagram - if it produces an explosion at least equal to 21st century "low tech" explosives - like C4 for an example... it doesn't take a lot to cause serious injury.


1 : Propellant Base
2 : Outer Casing
3 : Gyrostabilizer
4 : Mass Reactive Detonating Cap
5 : Diamantine Tip
6 : Main Charge
7 : Depleted deuterium core

Before you poo-poo this diagram - I am certain that it is an official GW published diagram - IIRC it was first released in White Dwarf as part of the article on the Deathwatch in 3rd Ed.

There's no logic box. You are making an assumption about a weapon with no actual evidence to back it up and all evidence pointing against your assumption, and therefor you argue that the bolter MUST be like modern weapons so that you can attempt (and, thus far, fail) a physics argument instead.

And I'm not buying it. The bolter shell does not have a particularly very powerful explosive element. This is well-established by every single non-fan fluff source no matter how much you scream otherwise. It has no blast effect in tabletop or roleplaying games, it does not effect adjacent enemies in tabletop or roleplaying games, and you have yet to cite a source in black library to support your argument either. That rules out your "C". Bolt weapons are not weaker at close range than they are at long range. This is well-established by every single non-fan fluff source no matter how much you scream otherwise. They do not become stronger in any game source, and there is no evidence of this in any other fluff source either save for a couple of fan-made sources which aren't official GW material. That rules out your "A".

That leaves, simply, that it exits the boltgun at maximum velocity and the rocket maintains that velocity over the distance needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:What do you mean "exceptionally" - "exceptionally" compared to what?

Compared to every other explosive device in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, why should I care if I'm placing a high standard on him to prove his point? I'm not the one attempting to make a physics argument based off of an incomplete understanding of physics about a fictional sci-fi weapon which we have an incomplete understanding of. That would be silly. I'm using the actual sci-fi source.

Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:What do you mean "exceptionally" - "exceptionally" compared to what?

Compared to every other explosive device in 40k.

That's a pretty broad category, covering may different classes and types of devices. Further clarification is required as you've not defined what you mean by "exceptionally". Is this a measure of the ratio of power to size of the charge, or a measure of net explosive power? If the bolt's charge is not "exceptionally" powerful - what level of explosive power do you attribute to the bolt's charge then?

Enough that if the bolt penetrated chest armor and rib cage it would leave a sizable crater in the chest (IE, instant death and destruction of most vital organs in the chest region) from the explosion, which is what is supported by fluff.

The explosive used in a bolter shell isn't necessarily that strong, and in fact there's no real reason to believe it is given its depiction in the fluff, its depiction in the rules, and its depiction in every single roleplaying game.

It's never been shown as having a large area of effect or any shrapnel effect. It basically "pops" inside of a person, greatly increasing the damage it does to them, rather than causing some massive fireball-laden explosion.

Yes, because there is no use of a 0.25" explosion in the game. The rules can't be precise in that if you don't want to play 10h for a single turn because of simulating every poopy factor.

IG Autocannon rounds have no template either, they are still explosive in real terms, because it is a waste of potential if you have a solid 20mm or bigger round if you can have explosive inside with much more destructive power (armor piercing and high explosive)

German AA Tank 35mm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkFcvIfI6QA
No AoE because it has no blasttemplate right?

Exactly the same for 20mm cannons they mount on APCs, except not as big explosions... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkIYxSFsX0U&feature=related. The explosion of a 20mm round is deadly in 2-3m.

If you want to compare Bolter to realworld, they have to be at least the same power as current weapons. Especially if your flak armor is supposed to be of high quality material compared to todays armor

I think you underestimate the destructive potential of the weaponry that is not hyped in common games (not like the oh-so-mighty C4 package, Tanks and Artillery)

The autocannon I assume would work on a similar principle as a bolter. The shell penetrates the target before detonating.

Such an explosion probably would turn whatever they'd hit to mush, but it would have a hard time hitting more than a single target at a time with the blast.

Remember, the position of the models isn't necessarily the position of the actual troops. The soldier is somehwere in the base, but he could easily be going prone, or something else to make it so he won't be affected by the guy next to him taking a mini-RPG to the face.

The autocannon I assume would work on a similar principle as a bolter.

It is a conventional Gun, the ammo has no rocketengine. At least i didn't read it anywhere.

There is not "the shell" for the autocannon. The great usefullness of the larger calibre guns is that they have a big range of different ammunition available. watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdwuOxYRI4&feature=related
Armor piercing, High explosive, Airburst ammo, etc.

And it's not particulary a new invention (except airburst, because it needs an accurate rangefinder)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&NR=1&feature=fvwp 37mm on aircraft in WWII
You want to be on that boat with your flakarmor? i guess not. No Area of effect eh? The transition of small to large calibre explosive rounds is fluent and grows in deadliness (range, explosion effect, penetration) the bigger the gun gets.

Even Bolter have multiple different roundtypes available.

Melissia wrote:Enough that if the bolt penetrated chest armor and rib cage it would leave a sizable crater in the chest (IE, instant death and destruction of most vital organs in the chest region) from the explosion, which is what is supported by fluff.

Destroying soft tissue in this case is just a "win more" situation. Due to the velocity and the AP properties of the bolt itself, despending on if the explosive action of the bullet can overcome residual forward momentum, the blast is going to tend towards exiting the target's back instead of cratering the chest. The smaller the charge, the less radius of action the explosive will have due to the fragments exiting the target before delivering damage. Assuming mach 3 and a body depth of 1 foot, the blast would have 0.3 miliseconds to generate the damage that you describe, requiring the charge detonating immediately after penetration to ensure maximum damage.

A physics guy or a ballistics expert would be better suited to calculate needed yeild to accomplish the stated effect. According to Wikipedia a modern 20mm slug has approximately 52 kJ KE.

a Mach 3 bolter shell would almost undoubtedly be ap 3 maybe 2, that's getting on up there in velocities, very close to railgun speeds. and FYI mellissa if you look back a few pages I prooved it needed to be close to mach 2-3 at muzzel velocity for you to be correct. And that was with a standard estes model rocket engine.

Exceptional Explosive compared too?? What?? A Vulcan Mega-bolter? A Krak Missile? An Anti-ship Torpedo?

Bolt Shells have explosive in them its fair to say it will be comparable to modern 20mm High Explosive Incendiary Tracer rounds. They make a good mess when they detonate.

keezus wrote:

Melissia wrote:Enough that if the bolt penetrated chest armor and rib cage it would leave a sizable crater in the chest (IE, instant death and destruction of most vital organs in the chest region) from the explosion, which is what is supported by fluff.

Destroying soft tissue in this case is just a "win more" situation.

On a human, maybe. Bolters aren't necessarily designed to be used against humans. They're designed to kill things far tougher than humans, with the biggest example being Orks, who have been a thorn in humanity's side (or perhaps a few trillion thorns) since humanity left the solar system.

Don't forget tyranids, and those bioacid/poison rounds. Lasguns just aren't going to cut it when your going up against warriors. They may be fine against the little hormagaunts but if you face a sufficiently rapidly evolving tyranid army, Even pulse rifles won't hurt even the hormagaunts.

Why do I get the feeling that Tyranid evolution is rapidly becoming the same thing as Borg adaptation as far as debates go?

Melissia wrote:They're designed to kill things far tougher than humans, with the biggest example being Orks, who have been a thorn in humanity's side (or perhaps a few trillion thorns) since humanity left the solar system.

That is purely speculative. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

While I'm no weapons expert, in my opinion, from an engineering perspective, the bolter is an impractical mashup of technologies that are designed to satisfy the "rule of cool".

The fluff describes the bolter as a hand held gun that fires 20mm rocket propelled, self stabilized, armor piercing rounds with an explosive charge - where the charge is intended to increase lethality after armor is pierced. However, this charge seems to be more an afterthought rather than a design feature considering the ammunition's 20mm dimensions and supersonic velocity already make its KE delivery gross overkill against most man-sized targets. Despite its stated mode of operation - AP first, followed by explosive charge - its AP efficiency is descried by the fluff to drop precipitiously against moderate to heavy armor (from 100% effectiveness to 50% vs carapace+ in the game and power armour+ in the fluff), meaning that in its default configuration, that bolt rounds actually have questionable AP performance. Hillariously - in the fluff, when they strip out the tiny explosive and make the round a solid slug, it's armor penetration performance inexplicably increases to AP3!!! The bolter is also described to be capable of burst fire / automatic fire modes (where users are shown using this rapid fire mode almost exclusively in game art). Marines are described to enter battle with their loaded weapon +2 clips - meaning that they do not likely have more than 36 rounds per engagement - making burst fire mode very draining on their meagre ammo supply. The weapon is described as being heavy and cumbersome even when fired using both hands by non-power armored troops.

Summary:
AP round that has questionable AP properties.
Explosive charge which is overkill against guys that can be defeated by the AP aspects of the weapon but is useless against guys where the AP fails.
Weapon is heavy and requires strength augmentation to properly wield.
Small ammunition supply.

I don't know what this weapon was designed to combat - other than common sense.

Still can't hold common sense to anything in 40k where Swords are still considered viable tactical weapons, instead of just status symbols.

keezus wrote:That is purely speculative. Do you have any proof to back up your claims?

Yes. It's overkill against humans, and therefor its not worth its expense. AFAIK (and I could be wrong here, GW doesn't release much new information about this era of 40k history), the bolter existed long before the Imperium did, and so it wasn't developed at a time of Imperial lack of science but instead during humanity's golden age. Maybe it was more efficient back then-- I don't know, but it seems reasonable that if the bolter had to exist it existed for the purpose of countering things which lasguns/autoguns and their equivalents had difficulty countering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keezus wrote:Weapon is heavy and requires strength augmentation to properly wield.

Actually no. It doesn't.

ASTARTES bolters do, but that's a specific pattern of bolter-- the Godwyn pattern. Sororitas bolters do as well, but again, that's a specific pattern-- the Godwyn-Deaz bolter. There are numerous civilian pattern bolters.

what is the actual recoil of the bolter?

@gendoikari87: The recoil is quantified in most fluff using the precise and scientific term: "minimal".

Astartes pattern bolters are considered to have excessive recoil for a human (it greatly effects a human's ability to use the bolter), but for an astartes, it's minimal. Source is the Deathwatch Roleplay game's core rule book.

Which means that human bolters probably have more manageable recoil.

Melissia wrote:Astartes pattern bolters are considered to have excessive recoil for a human (it greatly effects a human's ability to use the bolter), but for an astartes, it's minimal. Source is the Deathwatch Roleplay game's core rule book.

Which means that human bolters probably have more manageable recoil.

I remember one quote where a weapon merchant fires an Astartes bolter and dies.Some sources tell us that it has no recoil,but other tell us that they have massive recoil.

and that recoil is to an 8ft tall engineered giant, we had this similar discussion a couple years ago at our flgs. We had decided that the Bolter was similar to a MK19 automatic GL for the simple fact the grenades use have a very small explosion to standard grenades but have a heavy fire rate and minimal recoil to a standard man

Regardless, it's certainly true that Astartes pattern bolters aren't designed to be used by humans. They also are a bit more damaging somehow, though why exactly is not really stated.

Human bolters (At least, normal human bolters, not the ones that military units have) do 1d10+5 damage, where the 1d10 is two rolls and pick the highest. It weighs 15 pounds / 7 kilograms. Astartes bolters (the standard Godwyn pattern, not other patterns) do 2d10+5 damage and weighs approximately 18 kilograms / 40 pounds.

Melissia wrote:

keezus wrote:Weapon is heavy and requires strength augmentation to properly wield.

Actually no. It doesn't. ASTARTES bolters do, but that's a specific pattern of bolter-- the Godwyn pattern. Sororitas bolters do as well, but again, that's a specific pattern-- the Godwyn-Deaz bolter. There are numerous civilian pattern bolters.

Please elaborate:

When you say "civilian" do you mean: Bolters available on the open market? Non-military issue? Criminal source? Civilian USE?

Do the "civilian" bolters have a similar damage profile compared to the Astartes/Sororitas patterns? If so, that would indicate that they are of comparable calibre.

If they are of the same calibre / damage output, your statement would suggest that CIVILIAN bolters are of lighter construction and superior to the Astartes/Sororitas bolters. In that case, why in the Emperor's name are the Astartes/Sororitas using such cumbersome weapons when lighter "civilian" bolters would alow for ease of single hand firing. 3rd edition codex Space Wolves indicates that even for the Astartes, much training is needed to master single hand firing due to the awkward nature of the bolter! The only reasoning I can come up with is so that the warriors of the Imperium may club their enemies to death with their guns after they inevitably run out of their small ammo supply!

-Edit- saw your post on "non-astartes" bolters. The lower damage is probably from reduced calibre.
-Edit2- No strikeout feature on text?!??

Regardless of pattern, non strength augmented infantry is never shown to fire a bolter single handed. They may CARRY the bolter / stormbolter single handed, but firing requires two hands.

keezus wrote:Please elaborate:

See the post above yours. The information comes from Dark Heresy, which is a bit more in depth than tabletop 40k (strength four is a pretty wide range)

Melissia wrote:Regardless, it's certainly true that Astartes pattern bolters aren't designed to be used by humans. They also are a bit more damaging somehow, though why exactly is not really stated.

Human bolters (At least, normal human bolters, not the ones that military units have) do 1d10+5 damage, where the 1d10 is two rolls and pick the highest. It weighs 15 pounds / 7 kilograms. Astartes bolters (the standard Godwyn pattern, not other patterns) do 2d10+5 damage and weighs approximately 18 kilograms / 40 pounds.

In reference, a lasgun does 1d10+2 damage, with no re-roll, and no armor penetration against modern armors (it halves the armor value of primitive armors-- leathers, platemail, etc). Astartes pattern bolters have a penetration of 5, and civilian pattern bolters have a penetration of 4.

A "civilian pattern bolter" is one available on the open market. A civilian who had enough money (which is admittedly somewhat rare) can purchase a bolter for their use, and bolter shells which aren't considered as powerful as Astartes shells.

All of these bolter shells are considered to be .75 caliber.

Civilian pattern bolters can be equipped with a pistol grip that allows one to wield it single-handedly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should note it is not the caliber of the shell that changes, but the quality of it. Shells designed for a Godwyn pattern bolter (And probably the Godwyn-Deaz as well) are made to an extremely high quality, scrutinized for absolute perfection before being stamped and sent off to the Astartes. Even OWNING an Astartes shell is illegal (source: Dark Heresy - Inquisitor's Handbook supplement).

@Melissia: Well that muddies the waters a bit...

Per the above, it would appear that calibers are the same. Presumably the difference in penetration is some sort of combination of firing mechanism and bolt construction...

Is there a difference in weapon range? Is there a penalty for firing a bolter single handed without strength augmentation?

Are military bolters same damage profile as Astartes/Sororitas bolters? The IG issues bolt weapons to specialist troops and officers. They don't have strength augmentation either.

What damage do autoguns use in that system?

Civilian pattern bolters have a 90 meter effective range (long range being double this distance, and extreme range being at least three times this distance) regardless of make. Asatrtes pattern bolters are at 100 meters. Bolt pistols have a 30 meter range for both types. Bolt pistols do the same damage as boltguns, but heavy bolters do notably more damage in both cases (2d10+10 for Astartes pattern, and 2d10 for the civilian pattern, with each d10 being rolled twice and picking the highest for both). Astartes pattern bolters can also fire in full auto, whereas civilian pattern bolters can't.

There's a penalty for firing any basic weapon single-handedly without a specific trait, "bulging biceps", which does have a strength requirement for it and obviously indicates particularly strong arms. Having an Extra Grip/Pistol Grip (Same thing) lowers this penalty, as does the weapon being a carbine (there are lascarbines and so on).

There doesn't appear to be any difference between military-grade "human" bolters and civilian grade ones save for cost and weight. There's an illegal pattern of bolt carbine (the Angelus, likely the inspiration for or inspired by the name of the Blood Angels carbine) that fires Astartes shells, which has the Astartes damage profile. And the Spitfire, which is not really a proper bolter at all, made by gangers and incredibly unreliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:What damage do autoguns use in that system?

Both lasguns and autoguns are 1d10+3 (earlier I was apparently looking at the pistol variants, which do 1d10+2) without a re-roll on the 1d10.

I don't know about str augmentation on a genetic level but the sororitas are wearing power Armor. So presumably it has some strength augmenting abilities, otherwise the suits would be more like coffins. at least the normal human ones, sororitas look much slimmer.

Sororitas armor in actual artwork doesn't look very slimming. Boobcups and corsets aside, it's a protective piece of armor, not a fashion statement

also why would you need a str requirement to singly wield a lasweapon they have no recoil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Sororitas armor in actual artwork doesn't look very slimming. Boobcups and corsets aside, it's a protective piece of armor, not a fashion statement

I meant more that it looks thin in comparison to astartes versions.

But not compared to other human armors such as Inquisitors.

Keep in mind that Astartes are muclebound freaks, they do not have a normal human outline to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:also why would you need a str requirement to singly wield a lasweapon they have no recoil.

Try wielding a battle rifle in one hand without a pistol grip.

Melissia wrote:Civilian pattern bolters have a 90 meter effective range (long range being double this distance, and extreme range being at least three times this distance) regardless of make. Asatrtes pattern bolters are at 100 meters. Bolt pistols have a 30 meter range for both types. Bolt pistols do the same damage as boltguns.

Emphasis mine

This has always bothered me immensely.

We've already postulated that the rocket motor portion of the bolt is for speed maintenance only, and is used to maintain lethal force over the duration of its flight. Ergo, lower effective range would be dependent on the operating period of the rocket motor. Hence, in a bolt pistol, due to the smaller format, the motor duration is less. Makes sense so far. However, as the pistol has the same calibre (20mm) and since damage is stated to be the same as the long-arm version, this means that the speed of the projectile once it exits the muzzle is the same in the bolt pistol as the bolter. However, as the bolt pistol has a drastically shorter profile - it would appear that acceleration to the needed velocity happens irrespective of mechanism size OR barrel length. This part makes no sense.

It makes even less sense if part of the volume savings in smaller bolt pistol ammunition includes a reduction in the size of the solid core - as this would necessitate an INCREASE in exit (and maintained flight) speed to match the AP characteristic of its larger and heavier cousin... all from a smaller firing mechanism. I can see that -maybe- the full size bolter needs additional mechanism to enable fire in auto-mode (which was noted, doesn't exist in civilian bolters!), but the added barrel would appear to not contribute anything to performance.

Finally - if it has the same calibre and exit speed as a regular bolter (to maintain damage parity) - this would suggest (and I'm not entirely sure about this) that the pistol has a similar recoil profile as the bolter - but in a single handed form factor!

keezus wrote:

Melissia wrote:Civilian pattern bolters have a 90 meter effective range (long range being double this distance, and extreme range being at least three times this distance) regardless of make. Asatrtes pattern bolters are at 100 meters. Bolt pistols have a 30 meter range for both types. Bolt pistols do the same damage as boltguns.

Emphasis mine

This has always bothered me immensely.

We've already postulated that the rocket motor portion of the bolt is for speed maintenance only, and is used to maintain lethal force over the duration of its flight. Ergo, lower effective range would be dependent on the operating period of the rocket motor. Hence, in a bolt pistol, due to the smaller format, the motor duration is less. Makes sense so far. However, as the pistol has the same calibre (20mm) and since damage is stated to be the same as the long-arm version, this means that the speed of the projectile once it exits the muzzle is the same in the bolt pistol as the bolter. However, as the bolt pistol has a drastically shorter profile - it would appear that acceleration to the needed velocity happens irrespective of mechanism size OR barrel length. This part makes no sense.

It makes even less sense if part of the volume savings in smaller bolt pistol ammunition includes a reduction in the size of the solid core - as this would necessitate an INCREASE in exit (and maintained flight) speed to match the AP characteristic of its larger and heavier cousin... all from a smaller firing mechanism. I can see that -maybe- the full size bolter needs additional mechanism to enable fire in auto-mode (which was noted, doesn't exist in civilian bolters!), but the added barrel would appear to not contribute anything to performance.

Finally - if it has the same calibre and exit speed as a regular bolter (to maintain damage parity) - this would suggest (and I'm not entirely sure about this) that the pistol has a similar recoil profile as the bolter - but in a single handed form factor!

Everything makes sense if you assume bolts accelerate through their trajectory being more powerful at longer ranges and the initial charge only sends it out the end of the barrel, with it only being str 4 due to an averaging of the bolts abilities along its path. The difference won't be enough to write home about but technically speaking it would be significant, accounting for the lack of it coming up in the fluff as the rocket motor would burn out quickly leaving the maximum velocity at about 100-300ft.

it even takes into account why boltguns and pistols are the same str (due to most of the acceleration being from the rocket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Try wielding a battle rifle in one hand without a pistol grip.

You mean like the patriot the 5.56 ar15 pistol with double helix mag? it's about as effective as singly wielding a normal pistol... and by that I mean not at all. For any true control over a firearm you need two hands, unless your a god of ballsitics. and even then one handed is for tricks only.

oh and dual wielding is for idiots who want to be shot. even the exposition shooters I've seen dual wield took considerable time to aim at their targets, during which in any combat situation you'd have been shot.

We've already postulated that the rocket motor portion of the bolt is for speed maintenance only, and is used to maintain lethal force over the duration of its flight. Ergo, lower effective range would be dependent on the operating period of the rocket motor. Hence, in a bolt pistol, due to the smaller format, the motor duration is less. Makes sense so far. However, as the pistol has the same calibre (20mm) and since damage is stated to be the same as the long-arm version, this means that the speed of the projectile once it exits the muzzle is the same in the bolt pistol as the bolter. However, as the bolt pistol has a drastically shorter profile - it would appear that acceleration to the needed velocity happens irrespective of mechanism size OR barrel length. This part makes no sense.

i think the inconsitency in books/others is because they can't really decide what this gun is.
iirc it was at first (in earlier versions of warhammer) always described as case-less weapon. Means they shoot and the bullet is gone. No shell ejects because there is none.

Which makes sense for a bullet using a rocketengine. Rocketlaunchers have no shells either^^
Problem: rocketengines make no BANG. they are loud but they don't "bark" (seems to have become the common description of bolter sound).

Then someone thought it would be way cooler if the thing ejects shells like mad if you fire on fullauto (with hollywood ammo cheat of course-> shoot until reloading would produce the most dramatic situation) and makes BANG. And of course it is a big weapon so it must have a huge recoil to look cool.

You mean like the patriot the 5.56 ar15 pistol with double helix mag?

that one has a pistolgrip... The thing is meant for cqc where accuracy is not of much importance. standard M14 for example have no pistolgrip (ok there's a fugly stock and EBR kit to get one).

Whatever it is, it's bad physics all around.

By a battle rifle I mean an M14, an FN FAL, etc.

Actually an M1 Garand would be equally appropriate as well.

Who the hell is dumb enough to wield a full battle rifle in one hand? The only reason I can see is if you are missing an arm.

Then there's your answer to your question about lasguns in one hand.

Lasguns are full sized battle rifles, they aren't easy to aim in one hand. Lascarbines are assault rifle sized, they're easier to use in one hand.

I would say that it's different, since lasguns have no recoil. Sure it'll be difficult to hold, but it's not as impossible as it would be today.

Lasguns are full sized battle rifles, they aren't easy to aim in one hand. Lascarbines are assault rifle sized

There's almost no difference in assault rifles and "battle rifles" (never seen this term in military stuff before)... FN FAL is as well an assault rifle (yeah i know, Wikipedia says otherwise) as M16, G36, etc. Same size: ~1m, only larger calibre.
None of both are properly usable one handed, period.

The only weapons you can use onehanded are pistols and few submachineguns, although it is still more efficient to use both hands, except perhaps in 40k Closecombat.

edit:
It's not the recoil that makes it impossible, it's the weight of the weapon. You can't aim if you have to balance 3,5kg (top-heavy) or more in your single hand. Your "aimpoint" shakes as if you have parkinson

The difference between "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" is mostly a matter of caliber. The terminology originates from when two different calibers of ammunition were selected as the standard rounds for NATO. A "battle rifle" was a standard issue rifle, one that used a more traditional full powered rifle round, while and "assault rifle" was a lighter rifle that used an intermediate cartridge between the traditional rifle round and pistol round. The terminology originates from when there was more of a distinction between fighting from a great stand off distance and moving in close to fight or "assaulting." In general, but not necessarily, assault rifles tend to have both standard length and carbine forms, while battle rifles tend only to have a full length.

In the western world, more simply, a rifle firing a 5.56mm round is an assault rifle and a rifle firing a 7.62mm round is battle rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When it comes to all the previous pages discussion on different bolter recoils and such... I think it can be simply settled by the fact that just as in real life with rifle rounds there are so many types of bolter rounds... and without fluff specifying exactly what was fired there is no way to really say. The civilian bolters could very well only be capable of firing a lower recoil round. That the different contradictions of fluff on bolter shells can simply be written off as different types of shells.

That the different contradictions of fluff on bolter shells can simply be written off as different types of shells.

I think a better answer is that the writers have different levels of fluff/ physics knowledge and use the rule of cool to fill in what they don't know. Source is CS Got and the multi laser marines.

Quit bringing up CS Goto and other particularly low-quality works if you want to have a serious discussion. Nobody really takes his work seriously or as canon.

He's lumped in with the rest of them so if you want to take the others seriously, then you have to take him seriously as well. After all he does have a few Black library books. Unless that's another goto I was reading the other day.

No he's not.

Just because the fluff is there does not mean it needs to be of equal value to everyone else as far as the discussion goes.

Melissia wrote:No he's not.

Just because the fluff is there does not mean it needs to be of equal value to everyone else as far as the discussion goes.

um, YES he is.

Menshad Korum - Originally published in Inferno! #46, January 2005, Reprinted in the anthology Bringers of Death (Black Library, 2005).
Vindicare - Published in Tales from the Dark Millennium anthology (Black Library, 2006)

He Also wrote the dawn of war and deathwatch series.

Hmm.

Melissia wrote:Just because the fluff is there does not mean it needs to be of equal value to everyone else as far as the discussion goes.

Check this out.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/sci-fi-weapons/

Melissia wrote:Hmm.

Melissia wrote:Just because the fluff is there does not mean it needs to be of equal value to everyone else as far as the discussion goes.

yes and your "fluff" about bolters being equally effective at all ranges is invalid to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and on that note, meet the father of the future battlefield soldiers




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Even so, you’ve got to be careful when handling the thing. Over a few months in Iraq, a dozen soldiers were wounded in dazzler “friendly fire.” Several troops may have been injured while monkeying around with laser target designators, which are substantially more powerful than the less-lethal devices.

you know something comes to mind, the heavy stubber or .50bmg Equivalent and the bolter are the same str value so I guess you could crudely equate the twos terminal energy if you wanted to get a feel for the power of the explosive warhead.

That is a good point... though by virtue of 40k being abstract the comparison leaves a wide margin for variation. This doesn't invalidate the general notion, just requires a discussion that is pretty general. A .50bmg round compared to a .75cal bolter round, if in fact generally similar in ballistic effect would mean that assuming similar density and proportional mass means a bolter shell needs only travel at a little under 1/2 the velocity of a .50bmg. Thats a velocity of ~1500ft/s or still double the velocity of a 7.62NATO.

Even without a warhead thats pretty nasty. With a warhead it is reasonable that the shell could be fired at a lower velocity. While one might argue the details, this still paints a pretty reasonable picture in a modern context of a bolters capabilities. That to be as effective in the 40k setting, it would only need to be that effective today.

This all ignores the possible developements in technology bolter rounds would have beyond the present day. I think its scales well in this comparisson; that the above is a modern day conventional version compared to modern day weapons analogous to 40k ones, that in the context of the 40k setting those different weapons and armor would all be proportionately better than their modern counterparts.

TO STOP ALL THIS HAS ANYBODY READ THE FIRST WARHAMMER 40K WARGEAR BOOK.

Because in there tells you all this information (comparisons to modern day weapons as well).

Bolters are compact shell launchers which are effective up close BUT not at far distances

bronzemonkey wrote:TO STOP ALL THIS HAS ANYBODY READ THE FIRST WARHAMMER 40K WARGEAR BOOK.

Why should we stop? And yes I have.

We know time and time again that GW fluff writers are often writing things without any actual experiance in that area of expertise. So when GW says something is the same as something else or the equivalent to something else and then contradicts it with descriptions of function and capability you have to decide between the two and specifity over generality becomes the driving force. Stats are specific and other descriptions have been more specific than your quote.

bronzemonkey wrote:...effective up close BUT not at far distances

This is subjective what's "up close" and what are "far distances?" Those aren't numerical values and in comparison to the 40k ranges its quite contradictory. Unless its part of the deteriorated technology the abstract 24" range is something similar to rifle ranges in real life, or 300 yards for standard rifles.

The advantage of a bolter or any weapon having a warhead at all is that the weapon is less reliant on velocity to do damage. No mater how little ballistic force (to a point) the bolter shell has when it reaches the target it will always have "X" amount of explosive force. High velocity missiles are great for evading counter measures but even when they reach their target they have to slow down to give enough time for propegation through the explosive train; this is often accomplished by making the nose of grenades and rockets out of soft materials, even when they're intended to penetrate armor. The crumpling gives enough time for propegation.

Bolters are compact shell launchers which are effective up close BUT not at far distances

well yeah after the rocket cuts out it will start to loose velocity. like mythos said you can't really use that as a comparison without numerical values.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unless its part of the deteriorated technology the abstract 24" range is something similar to rifle ranges in real life, or 300 yards for standard rifles.

well except that scaled to 28mm 24" is something like 60 yards,

also on missiles don't forget the stand off distance they need a, a shaped charge is uselss if the jet doesn't form or forms improperly

Except that the creators have said 40k is intended as a graduated abstract scale. Where 24" is one range say 300 yards and the 120" range of a basilisk is 10km. Its not a linear scale.

I'm not the one arguing by numbers, genodikari. Taht's you. I'm the one jwho is reasonable enough to realize that arguing fluff by numbers is a futile gesture

Hey look were issuing bolters to our troops now.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/sc_afp/usmilitaryweaponsafghanistan


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey I found the Fluff part about bolters initial charge being only enough to push it out of the end of the barrel. Imperial armour Volume II Page 250.

Found some other neat stuff in there too, some of it seems to have a fair level of scientific expertise behind it. They aren't perfect but much better than anything else GW i've read.