Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
I don't think you understand what a boltgun is, a Boltgun isn't just a gun that fire bullets. it fires rocket proelled armor penatrating explosive shells
It would be something like; 3 transports filled with guard, 7 transports filled bullets. With more ships needed each week to just keep their ammo filled.
While guard should Definately have Las guns for logistics purposes, marines should also have a backup Las system build into their armour somewhere. They carry a micro fusion reactor on their back anyway, so may as well have a backup ranged weapon that will never run out of ammo as long as the armour us working.
As above - lasguns are logistically far more robust and require less maintainance that bolters do. Guardsmen require as little logistical strain as possible, so lasguns work best. Although, as said above, giving Space Marines a las weapon of some kind to hook up to their backpack power generator would be a good move - a hotshot laspistol, perhaps.
Also, Marines have plenty ballistic/projectile weapons. Even ignoring Bolter and Heavy Bolters, they also use Autocannons (though not as much as Guard), Assault cannons, etc
Marines probably have a good mix of both types of weapons whether traditional ballistics or energy based.
Guard have lasguns basically because they are "idiot-proof" and easy to mass produce
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
I don't think you understand what a boltgun is, a Boltgun isn't just a gun that fire bullets. it fires rocket proelled armor penatrating explosive shells
He was confused by the fact it's strength 4. And does no damage on the table top. Even though it's effectively a rapid fire RPG.
Well, Bolters were weak in 7th, too. Yes, they were better against Orks and Guard, but everything was good against them, that's why they were very weak.
Also, Bolters in 8th have become better against most vehicles. ;-)
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well, Bolters were weak in 7th, too. Yes, they were better against Orks and Guard, but everything was good against them, that's why they were very weak.
Also, Bolters in 8th have become better against most vehicles. ;-)
Which is one of the reasons I dislike the change to how wounds are taken and ap is handled. Bolters are much worse verse light infantry but someone have a one and six chance in popping a wound off a knight? That bothers me.
I think Space Marines carrying hot-shot laspistols would be a great idea, but bolters should be buffed in the game to Primaris levels across the board.
Lasguns are cheap to manufacture, easy to maintain and hard to truly break. Power packs can be charged in sunlight or thrown in a campfire for an emergency charge. Ideal for massed rank and file, expendable infantry.
Bolters are barely understood, difficult to maintain, hard to carry ammo for and kick like a mule. Ideal for genetically enhanced elite superhuman mystical warrior monks with tech serfs and attendants galore.
I see no issue with current fluff and weapons suiting owners. You could always go pick up some Rogue Trader-era Marines with lasguns and shuriken catapults if you want!
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Because a bolter is more devastating than a lasgun.
A bolter fires a .75 caliber (19.05mm) armor piercing rocket that explodes inside of you with the force of a modern day 40mm grenade. Compare that to a lasgun which has the stopping power of a modern day ballistic assault rifle, even if it is more accurate.
A lasgun is more accurate than a bolter but a bolter is basically a fully automatic armor-piercing RPG gun.
The only reason why guardsmen aren't equipped with human sized bolters is logistical issues.
Guardsmen also wouldn't be able to handle constant recoil of the boltgun (if we're basing this on lore etc.) and would struggle to carry the weight of the extra ammo.
It's a major reason many countries in the world have switched to smaller caliber rifles - recoil, and more ammo for the same or less weight. The ideal would be the same in 40K.
Why do Marines carry Bolters? Because they’re terror weapons.
Why don’t Space Marines snipe or wear camo? Because they’re terror troops. They’re there to break the enemies will by being blatant, and striking where they want with ridiculous force.
They want you to see them coming. They want you to see them shrug off gunfire whilst your squadmate detonate around you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And scouts are the snipers and wetwork sepcialists in the Marines.
They're the ones you don't see coming
Automatically Appended Next Post: Case in point about lasguns vs bolters:
A single lasgun firing against carapace or power armour has a low chance of striking a join or weak point and actually penetrating. It is more likely to burn a little of the armour (or in the case of power armour just scuff the paint a bit)
A boltgun (storm bolter, bolt gun, bolt rifle, auto bolt rifle etc) using a standard mass reactive rocket propelled round is capable of shredding through carapace armour and blowing holes in power armour, with every shot.
Now. certain las weaponry in the IG armoury (eg hotshot lasguns) have the power to contend with bolters, but they are not fielded en masse like bolters are to space marines.
Lasguns have no moving parts, are cheap as chips to manufacture, don't require hundreds of duo-deca-tillions of bullets be made for the sept-illion Guardsmen firing around the galaxy every minute. They are lasers, so very accurate and pretty much point and shoot, perfect for a Guardsman with 4 weeks training and an expected lifespan of 20 weeks that you don't want to invest years training to die in 2 seconds. They strike with the same force as contemporary (21st Century) Assault Rifles as shown by their comparable stats with the Autogun and Autopistol.
Their tanks are relatively cheap to make, with weapons such as the Battle Cannon and Basilisk cannon requiring a few dozen shells in the course of the battle and are relatively cheap to manufacture and repair.
Boltguns are not solid ammo weapons. They fire a sophistocated rocket-propelled, armour piercing, explosive slug capable of blowing a human to smithereens in a single shot. Each one is a work of labour to ensure the smooth functioning and precise firepower. They contain loads of working parts and each bullet is in investment in itself. It is wielded by genetically enhanced superhumans who are trained and drilled to be better marksmen that a human could ever accomplish without enhancement, and are far less likely to miss. They are trained for years, gruelling training taking out 80% of the aspirants before they even get to see a boltgun. They spend decades training with their weapon, sometimes centuries. To boot, most bolters are designed for use with power armour, and even the human sized Godwyn-De'az pattern that Sisters of Battle use would likely remove a Guardsman's arm from his shoulder.
Meanwhile, their tanks such as Predators and Land Raiders make use of Lascannon, each a powerful relic that requires intense maintenance and reparation, polishing of refractor crystals and focusing lenses, careful calculation of geometry, angles and physics.
In short: Imperial Guard get cheap and cost-efficient weaponry to reflect their expected lifespan, where they will die before they fire a shot, and get slower, weaker and worse with age. Space Marines are each a unique investment and a hero of humanity who is expected to give hundreds of years of service, becoming better and better over time. To this end, they are given the best weaponry and wargear possible because they can expect to make use of that weapon for centuries, not minutes.
HexHammer wrote: Based on the answers I assume there's many civilians here, that never shot a projective over 200 m?
Space marines have binocular vision. With a lasgun - they literally couldn't miss.
That sure sound very civilian to me.
Its a very civilian answer, I agree, but the point still stands. With space marine's increased vision, awareness, brainpower (for leading targets), autosenses built into their HUD, and decades of training, plus a weapon with no recoil and no bullet drop, there's no reason a space marine should ever miss his target unless he's in the thick of melee. Or, to be more accurate about, a Space Marine should be able to hit his target 99.999% of the time.
On the other hand, with all of that extra help, they should still use bolters. Even the recoil can be negated between an Astartes enhanced strength and armour, recoil should be a null factor. The only issue is again, drop off over distance, which can still be accounted for and with all the training they receive and increased intelligence, and as seen in Sergeant Telion's fluff, space marines are easily capable of shooting well beyond the optimal range of their weapon.
Actually, bolters shouldn't have bullet drop over distance. The gyros within each bolt should compensate for the gravity by angling ever so slightly downward. This is true for pretty much everything such as temperature, humidity, wind, Coriolis effect etc. The only thing a space marine should have to take into account is travel time.
Wouldn't that cause the bolt to tumble instead, as the thrust is not directly below its centre of mass. If it spins because of rifling it again would not work. And to compensate for the coriolis effect over long distances it would need a side thrust to compensate for the spin of the Earth.
Tygre wrote: Wouldn't that cause the bolt to tumble instead, as the thrust is not directly below its centre of mass. If it spins because of rifling it again would not work. And to compensate for the coriolis effect over long distances it would need a side thrust to compensate for the spin of the Earth.
No the bolt wouldn't tumble because there is a constant forward force... you are thinking of a sharp+quick upward force on the back end, whereas I am thinking more of an ever so slightly angled thrust (maybe a fraction of a degree downward to counter gravity) with micro thrust corrections to counter the tumbling from air resistance. Remember, a bolt fired from a boltgun is more like a missile than a projectile.
Ideally Space Marines would use Custodes stats to better represent their fluff, but then Custodes would have to somehow be EVEN BETTAH, which is not possible to do well in a D6 based system.
Boltguns fire armour penetrating rockets?! S4 0 AP
When is GW going to do a game with immersive lore? That is, integrity between the books and the battlefield. Never, is when!
There's only so much you can do with a d6 system, as mentioned, and armies have to be balanced in some way. And GW wants to sell models ofc.
But IIRC the problem with a bolter vs low- or unarmored targets is usually overpenetration. The bolt blows a .75 hole in the target but fails to detonate or detonates several meters later. The warhead can be set to explode from lighter resistance but then it won't get through battlefield debris, dense brush or other more substantial cover. But the marines keep them anyway as the sound of the rocket and the explosions is so awesome and panic-inducing.
Spetulhu wrote: But the marines keep them anyway as the sound of the rocket and the explosions is so awesome and panic-inducing.
This is one thing the tabletop rules utterly fail to represents, other than the Reivers. Marines are SHOCK TROOPS. They are there to get in, rip things a new one and then get out.
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols? SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement. On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
One word - Logistics.
Lasguns are cheap to mass produce and are extremely reliable. Boltguns are powerful, but need maintenance and are a bit more expensive. Marines would know how to maintain, guardsmen wouldn't unless they receive training. Which is time consuming and wasted on a soldier with low battlefield life expectancy.
Also, you are wrong about what ammunition boltguns use. They do not use bullets; they fire miniature rockets. Autoguns use bullets, and some IG regiments use those, iirc.
Spetulhu wrote: But the marines keep them anyway as the sound of the rocket and the explosions is so awesome and panic-inducing.
This is one thing the tabletop rules utterly fail to represents, other than the Reivers. Marines are SHOCK TROOPS. They are there to get in, rip things a new one and then get out.
I wished they kept morale / psychology rules, such as pinning and what not. They could have reworked it into a suppression type rule. Instead soldiers just die when they get scared, and I find that to be a bit bland in terms of mechanics. Oh, its functional, just boring.
Northern85Star wrote: I dont know how much more 40k lore i can take xD It gets worse the more i get to know!
Boltguns fire armour penetrating rockets?! xD
S4 0 AP
When is GW going to do a game with immersive lore? That is, integrity between the books and the battlefield. Never, is when!
They used to be AP5, ignoring anything less than Fire Warrior/Eldar Guardian armour, such as Imperial guard flak armour, most Orks and tyranid swarms, etc. To put in context, Imperial flak armour in pre-8th was a 5+ save, capable of saving vs Frag Grenades and Heavy stubbers (equivilent of a modern 50cal HMG). So they were accurately represented.
8th ed throws out lore representation in favour of balance and brownnosing up the new Bolt Rifle as the armour puncturing beast.
Yeah, boltguns used to be able to pierce light armor (5+) saves. Now they are just stronger lasguns. It was probably to push the boltrifle, even though the extra range would have been enough distinction.
Wondering why Astartes don’t have lasguns is exactly the reason why Astartes will always always always be more destructive and violent than Storm Troopers. Because that’s what you get when your staple elite soldier has a flash light for a weapon and not an automatic cannon with exploding armour piercing rounds.
BaconCatBug wrote: Ideally Space Marines would use Custodes stats to better represent their fluff, but then Custodes would have to somehow be EVEN BETTAH, which is not possible to do well in a D6 based system.
custodes should be like Calgar level - every single one of them.
Mellow wrote: Wondering why Astartes don’t have lasguns is exactly the reason why Astartes will always always always be more destructive and violent than Storm Troopers. Because that’s what you get when your staple elite soldier has a flash light for a weapon and not an automatic cannon with exploding armour piercing rounds.
Considering that ''flashlight'' can pierce through power armor, I think its a pretty good weapon.
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
Lasguns aren't that really good for real armour, boltguns can puncture much heavier armour than a lasgun and if they do penetrate they are devastating, only a SM or Ork etc. have the physiology's to survive a bolt going off inside them. Plus anyone knows that if you submerge explosives they are even deadlier due to the increase in pressure. Also bang bang bang is far better than pew pew pew lol
Lasers are also an inferior weapon to ballistics unless the scale is large. A lasgun is really weak because of the power requirement in something that can be carried by a single human. A Hot Shot lasgun requires a power cable going to a backpack to have enough energy, it's still S3. To have a destructive las weapon you have to move up to a lascannon or a multi las which are not usable by a single normal human. They're huge, and have giant power cells.
A bolter however is far stronger than a laser weapon of similar size. A Space Marine isn't going to use a rifle sized laser weapon cause they're too weak. They're not going to issue a stronger laser gun standard issue because of the size issues.
Look at the Eldar, they manage to have rifle sized laser weapons that don't suck because their technology is way better than humans. They can manage a power source that's better while still being small.
This is a thought I've had a few times over the years, but considering how strong marines are, it's a bit weird that there isn't a heavy bolter equivalent of a las weapon, well there is the multi laser, but there isn't one available to marines that is portable...
Surely something could be developed that had the punch of a hot shot but with more power still that is still portable, and marines could surely carry the backpack with ease to power it, heck it could be feeding straight into the marine power pack to power it.
I mean, bolters are obviously the reason why, but still another las weapon could be incorporated into the game, even if it's marines that aren't using it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The psychological factor of bolt weapons, specifically on humans is also a reason why they are used, they are load and brash. Lasguns no matter what star wars tells you do not make sounds.
Even Eldar Las weapons tend to either be man-portable S3 (A4, though), or heavy S6 weapons not used on foot.
Why would Marines need a laser weapon? They aren't intended for prolonged engagements, so ammo availability isn't as much of a concern.
If you're thinking of a backup weapon in case they do run out of ammo, you do know they spit acid, right? That's going to outperform carrying some las-pistol backup sidearm in the case that the boltgun and bolt pistol break. And another bolt clip is going to outperform that las-pistol in the case of ammo running out.
Honestly I feel that IG shouldn't have had access to bolt weapons of any kind - surely way too much logistics required. Keep them with lasers, have multi-laser HWTs instead of HB.
In old lore, the multilaser (and in fact all laser weapons) is powered by the same power pack as the humble lasgun, just fewer shots per pack, but holds more of them. Which for the IG simplified the logistics immensely, and allows your heavy weapons to keep firing by taking cells from the other troopers (or dead ones, of which I'm sure there'll be plenty!). And in vehicles with their own power sources, means less ammo to cook off when your armor is penetrated.
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
Of
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
In order to judge this fairly, we need to accept the premise of the swap and assume appropriate lore.
In this althammer 40k, the secrets of laser tech are only held by a few forgeworlds. Man portable laser weapons are reserved for the Angels of death, who wield godhammer pattern lascannon, Goto pattern multilasers and fearsome Mortis pattern hellguns, bulked up laser rifles that can blow a man to ash and cinders in a single shot. Preachers on distant worlds scream furiously of the Emperor's mighty angels and their weapons of pure light.
The Imperial guard is armed with the autogun, a marvel of 41st millennium engineering. It fires caseless ammunition which can be produced in even backwater outposts and accepts a variety of calibres and more primitive ammunition types, allowing ammunition to be salvaged from friendly units or even enemy combatants. On industrial worlds cyclopean factorums churn out endless streams of autorounds for the vast warzones of the Imperium and yet it is not enough! Factory ships in the crusade fleets stripmine asteroids en route to the muster worlds and still whole companies find themselves out of ammunition reduced to bayonet charges to break the enemy lines.
Boltguns are ballistic weapons that fire small unguided rockets that blow lightly armoured targets apart. They are mostly used as point defense weapons on shipping containers where the impractical violent threat they pose acts as a deterrent.
Thematically this all works well- the marines get the obviously sci-fi lasers and the guard get the near-future battle rifles. All marine solid fire weaponry can be converted to appropriate lastype, demolisher cannons are small turbo lasers , heavybolters are multilasers, whirlwind artillery tanks are guiding orbital/drone laser strikes.
The problem in my view is translating this to models. The basic guardsman is recognisable as such through a pauldron if he has one and his lasgun. Otherwise he could be a Laurence of Arabia or WWI/II cosplayer minature. I don't think autoguns as presently designed are visually distinct enough to get that effect. It is hard to get a weapon that is a clear successor of today's weapons looking different enough so that it doesn't just look like a bolt action figure.
Marines can get away with all energy weapons if they want (as the heresy ably demonstrates) but I think they lose some grit in the process.
endlesswaltz123 wrote:This is a thought I've had a few times over the years, but considering how strong marines are, it's a bit weird that there isn't a heavy bolter equivalent of a las weapon, well there is the multi laser, but there isn't one available to marines that is portable...
Surely something could be developed that had the punch of a hot shot but with more power still that is still portable, and marines could surely carry the backpack with ease to power it, heck it could be feeding straight into the marine power pack to power it.
I mean, bolters are obviously the reason why, but still another las weapon could be incorporated into the game, even if it's marines that aren't using it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The psychological factor of bolt weapons, specifically on humans is also a reason why they are used, they are load and brash. Lasguns no matter what star wars tells you do not make sounds.
I agree on the psychological warfare aspect - on one hand, bolters make a meaty roar of ignition jets and explode your foes into tiny chunks of viscera. Lasguns make a slight hiss and crack as they superheat the water in the target and sear off the top layer of armour (because while the gun itself makes no pew pew noise, the laws of energy do not allow all of the energy from the laser to be changed into heat. Some is lost as light and some as sound. Dust, water vapour and skin all evaporating in a microsecond would surely make a noise. That's also not to say there is no "charging up" sound from the power pack).
However, going away from that - Bolters are loud and gorey. Lasguns are quiet and very helpful, cauterising enemy wounds so they dont bleed out!
endlesswaltz123 wrote: This is a thought I've had a few times over the years, but considering how strong marines are, it's a bit weird that there isn't a heavy bolter equivalent of a las weapon, well there is the multi laser, but there isn't one available to marines that is portable...
Surely something could be developed that had the punch of a hot shot but with more power still that is still portable, and marines could surely carry the backpack with ease to power it, heck it could be feeding straight into the marine power pack to power it.
I mean, bolters are obviously the reason why, but still another las weapon could be incorporated into the game, even if it's marines that aren't using it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The psychological factor of bolt weapons, specifically on humans is also a reason why they are used, they are load and brash. Lasguns no matter what star wars tells you do not make sounds.
Yeah, if only there was something like that in existence... like a larger lasgun, they could call it a "lascannon" or something, I don't know...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: This is a thought I've had a few times over the years, but considering how strong marines are, it's a bit weird that there isn't a heavy bolter equivalent of a las weapon, well there is the multi laser, but there isn't one available to marines that is portable...
Surely something could be developed that had the punch of a hot shot but with more power still that is still portable, and marines could surely carry the backpack with ease to power it, heck it could be feeding straight into the marine power pack to power it.
I mean, bolters are obviously the reason why, but still another las weapon could be incorporated into the game, even if it's marines that aren't using it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The psychological factor of bolt weapons, specifically on humans is also a reason why they are used, they are load and brash. Lasguns no matter what star wars tells you do not make sounds.
Yeah, if only there was something like that in existence... like a larger lasgun, they could call it a "lascannon" or something, I don't know...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: This is a thought I've had a few times over the years, but considering how strong marines are, it's a bit weird that there isn't a heavy bolter equivalent of a las weapon, well there is the multi laser, but there isn't one available to marines that is portable...
Surely something could be developed that had the punch of a hot shot but with more power still that is still portable, and marines could surely carry the backpack with ease to power it, heck it could be feeding straight into the marine power pack to power it.
I mean, bolters are obviously the reason why, but still another las weapon could be incorporated into the game, even if it's marines that aren't using it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The psychological factor of bolt weapons, specifically on humans is also a reason why they are used, they are load and brash. Lasguns no matter what star wars tells you do not make sounds.
You've missed the obvious my friend. Lasers don't make noise so all las weapons and Star Wars blasters have a built in device that makes the shooting noise.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Here we have someone so desperate to flex their balls on the internet, they totally miss the point. I was talking about a low to mid power multi shot laser weapon, that could shoot effectively on the move, not a 1 shot tank killer. Pleb.
Touched a nerve, did I? Re-read your post that I quoted; you're literally describing what a lascannon is. Las-based heavy weapon similar to what a Heavy Bolter is to a regular Bolter? Check. Can be used as a heavy weapon by an Imperial Gaurd weapons team, like a Heavy Bolter? Check. Can be carried and used as a portable heavy weapon/anti-armour by Marines, like the Heavy Bolter? Check. It even plugs into their backpack/powerpack via cables, just like you described? Check! Wow, amazing, huh? Dingus.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Here we have someone so desperate to flex their balls on the internet, they totally miss the point. I was talking about a low to mid power multi shot laser weapon, that could shoot effectively on the move, not a 1 shot tank killer. Pleb.
Touched a nerve, did I? Re-read your post that I quoted; you're literally describing what a lascannon is. Las-based heavy weapon similar to what a Heavy Bolter is to a regular Bolter? Check. Can be used as a heavy weapon by an Imperial Gaurd weapons team, like a Heavy Bolter? Check. Can be carried and used as a portable heavy weapon/anti-armour by Marines, like the Heavy Bolter? Check. It even plugs into their backpack/powerpack via cables, just like you described? Check! Wow, amazing, huh? Dingus.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Actually a lastalon would be more fitting as it is at least a multi shot. I was looking at a MULTI SHOT weapon. Not a one shot. REMOVED
Well it's a good job you never specified as such in your initial description then, otherwise I'd have looked pretty silly there instead of you.
Spoiler:
*psst* multilasers are still a thing
Spoiler:
*second psst* not sure you understand you're posting on 40K Background, and there's a clear disconnect between TT weapon profiles and their place/behaviour in the lore; I.e; most weapons on the TT are single shot, if you want to get technical about it
endlesswaltz123 wrote: This is a thought I've had a few times over the years, but considering how strong marines are, it's a bit weird that there isn't a heavy bolter equivalent of a las weapon, well there is the multi laser, but there isn't one available to marines that is portable...
Surely something could be developed that had the punch of a hot shot but with more power still that is still portable, and marines could surely carry the backpack with ease to power it, heck it could be feeding straight into the marine power pack to power it.
I mean, bolters are obviously the reason why, but still another las weapon could be incorporated into the game, even if it's marines that aren't using it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The psychological factor of bolt weapons, specifically on humans is also a reason why they are used, they are load and brash. Lasguns no matter what star wars tells you do not make sounds.
Yeah, if only there was something like that in existence... like a larger lasgun, they could call it a "lascannon" or something, I don't know...
Except Lascannons, even on space marines, are barely portable. A Space marine has to move slowly and carry a massive power pack. They fire slowly and advance slowly and are poor for anti-infantry and overkill vs light vehicles. Bolters can do all that of that. Plus Lascannons are extremely rare and complex and bolters arent, comparatively
Deadshot wrote: Except Lascannons, even on space marines, are barely portable. A Space marine has to move slowly and carry a massive power pack. They fire slowly and advance slowly and are poor for anti-infantry and overkill vs light vehicles. Bolters can do all that of that. Plus Lascannons are extremely rare and complex and bolters arent, comparatively
Except that Heavy Bolters sufer the exact same penalties to movement on the TT, making this an entirely irrelevant counterpoint to my post - which, in context, was simply pointing out that the poster was describing, in a nutshell, a lascannon, whilst lamenting that there's nothing in the setting like a lascannon. Pretty simple... unless "las equivalent Heavy Bolter" suddenly means something different to what I think it means.
Deadshot wrote: Except Lascannons, even on space marines, are barely portable. A Space marine has to move slowly and carry a massive power pack. They fire slowly and advance slowly and are poor for anti-infantry and overkill vs light vehicles. Bolters can do all that of that. Plus Lascannons are extremely rare and complex and bolters arent, comparatively
Except that Heavy Bolters sufer the exact same penalties to movement on the TT, making this an entirely irrelevant counterpoint to my post - which, in context, was simply pointing out that the poster was describing, in a nutshell, a lascannon, whilst lamenting that there's nothing in the setting like a lascannon. Pretty simple... unless "las equivalent Heavy Bolter" suddenly means something different to what I think it means.
Well a Heavy Bolter is a large MG type weapon that fires larger caliber rounds to a standard infantry weapon, designed for anti-infantry work, much like modern LMGs and HMGs. A Lascannon is a single shot superlaser designed to one-shot a tank. They do entirely different jobs. The weapon you're looking for is Multilaser, a rapid firing laser.
Also, this is the background section. TT is irrelevant right now as its an abstract of the background.
Deadshot wrote: Also, this is the background section. TT is irrelevant right now as its an abstract of the background.
My point exactly! So why bring in the mobility penalty of the lascannon-carrying Marine? When it's mirrored by the heavy bolter-carrying Marine? These weapons behave on the TT like one-shot weapons, whether they're fully automatic, semi-automation, or "one-shot" in the lore (EDIT: well three shots so not quite, I was more thinking of standard infantry weapons, my bad ). So, let's humour the other poster for a second and say the rate of fire for the lascannon matched the heavy bolter... the changes? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They were claiming there isn't a las equivalent of the heavy bolter; there is. If they want a "machine-gun" las, there's the multilaser. If they want a heavy weapon-type heavy lasgun, that can be carried by Marines plugged into their backs, etc - you know, exactly as they described in the post I replied to - then there's the lascannon. On the TT, sure, they fire one shot at a time, in the lore, let's just pretend that, oh I don't know... the Marine in question simply squeezes the trigger a few more times? Especially seeing that the heavy bolter likely can't even fire at the same rate as a true "machinegun" anyway, because it's firing rocket-propelled explosive shells, not bullets.
How a machine gun fires;
How the heavy bolter is more likely to fire;
NONE of this is represented on the TT, including rates of fire and their man-portability. The point remains, therefore, the lascannon IS the las equivalent of the heavy bolter in terms of Marines carrying them around and firing them. It IS the heavy version of the lasgun, as the heavy bolter is the heavy version of the boltgun. So, so simple.
Deadshot wrote: Also, this is the background section. TT is irrelevant right now as its an abstract of the background.
My point exactly! So why bring in the mobility penalty of the lascannon-carrying Marine? When it's mirrored by the heavy bolter-carrying Marine? These weapons behave on the TT like one-shot weapons, whether they're fully automatic, semi-automation, or "one-shot" in the lore (EDIT: well three shots so not quite, I was more thinking of standard infantry weapons, my bad ). So, let's humour the other poster for a second and say the rate of fire for the lascannon matched the heavy bolter... the changes? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They were claiming there isn't a las equivalent of the heavy bolter; there is. If they want a "machine-gun" las, there's the multilaser. If they want a heavy weapon-type heavy lasgun, that can be carried by Marines plugged into their backs, etc - you know, exactly as they described in the post I replied to - then there's the lascannon. On the TT, sure, they fire one shot at a time, in the lore, let's just pretend that, oh I don't know... the Marine in question simply squeezes the trigger a few more times? Especially seeing that the heavy bolter likely can't even fire at the same rate as a true "machinegun" anyway, because it's firing rocket-propelled explosive shells, not bullets.
How a machine gun fires;
How the heavy bolter is more likely to fire;
NONE of this is represented on the TT, including rates of fire and their man-portability. The point remains, therefore, the lascannon IS the las equivalent of the heavy bolter in terms of Marines carrying them around and firing them. It IS the heavy version of the lasgun, as the heavy bolter is the heavy version of the boltgun. So, so simple.
Nothing of what I mentioned is relevant to the table top. I' speaking purely in lore terms.
Space Marines can hand carry weapons designed for use by Heavy Weapons Teams of humans, such as HB, LC,Autocannons, etc. But they arent particularly mobile and dont carry them like its nothing. They are large, slow weapons that take a bit of time and positioning to get the best out of them. That is represented in the lore as well as the table.
Lascannons and HBs are nothing alike. They do completely different jobs, one being a larger, bigger caliber automatic weapon designed for infantry suppression. The other is a tank killer, low RoF.
Deadshot wrote: Nothing of what I mentioned is relevant to the table top. I' speaking purely in lore terms.
So, again; why did you use mobility as a counterpoint for their equivelancy (particularly in context of my post in reply to the one it was quoting)???
Especially when you follow with something that goes in line with what I was using to prove their equivelancy to begin with:
Space Marines can hand carry weapons designed for use by Heavy Weapons Teams of humans, such as HB, LC,Autocannons, etc. But they arent particularly mobile and dont carry them like its nothing. They are large, slow weapons that take a bit of time and positioning to get the best out of them. That is represented in the lore as well as the table.
Lascannons and HBs are nothing alike.
Something that is factually incorrect. As supported by BOTH our comments. A bread knife and a carving knife do completely different jobs. Yet to say they are nothing alike is nonsense. I think part of the problem is that you're looking at the HB as if it's an IRLMG, which is actually equivelant to 40K's stubbers, autoguns, assault cannons, etc. A HB may be decribed as an "infantry suppression" weapon, but that's only really because "infantry" can include Space Marines, Tyranids, Orks, and other stuff that, IRL, would easily pass for light and even moderately armoured targets. Against "soft" infantry/targets, a HB is way overkill and wasteful of costly resources for that job. It's better-suited to heavy infantry and light vehicles. It's not really there to be what IRLMGs are. Again, look to stubbers, autoguns - and for Marines assault cannons - for that sort of role.
Anfauglir wrote: Against "soft" infantry/targets, a HB is way overkill and wasteful of costly resources for that job. It's better-suited to heavy infantry and light vehicles. It's not really there to be what IRLMGs are. Again, look to stubbers, autoguns - and for Marines assault cannons - for that sort of role.
This is not true.
Guard infantry regiments use heavy bolters for infantry suppression in the same way that a modern soldier might use an M240B (except the heavy bolter is huge and heavy, so more like a crew served M240B). The heavy bolter is the Guard infantry machinegun basically. Heavy stubbers (equivalent to browning M2) shoot faster but are less powerful.
I honestly wish standard guard had access to a heavy stubber or a crew served multilaser as a heavy weapon, I would take those over the heavy bolter any day. Guard using bolters just seems wrong to me. Bolters are a marine weapon.
Okay, maybe if I'd said "shouldn't be there for that" rather than "they're not there for that" (which is more to do with GW game designers not really understanding weaponry that well)... otherwise - yes, it's very true. Using what's essentially an automatic RPG on anything that's soft for suppression purposes is both overkill and wasteful of resources. Extremely so. An actual MG equivelant is a much more suitable weapon for that purpose, leaving the HB for that which it's better-suited, heavy infantry and light vehicles, as I explained.
Guard infantry regiments use heavy bolters for infantry suppression in the same way that a modern soldier might use an M240B (except the heavy bolter is huge and heavy, so more like a crew served M240B). The heavy bolter is the Guard infantry machinegun basically. Heavy stubbers (equivalent to browning M2) shoot faster but are less powerful.
Yeah I already explained why this is. A lot of what passes for "infantry" in the 40K setting would easily qualify IRL as light - and sometimes even moderate - armoured targets. That doesn't make the HB a literal equivalent to an IRLMG, though, like what Deadshot had been saying.
I honestly wish standard guard had access to a heavy stubber or a crew served multilaser as a heavy weapon, I would take those over the heavy bolter any day. Guard using bolters just seems wrong to me. Bolters are a marine weapon.
There's nothing in the lore to say that they (you) can't. Pretty sure stubbers as a heavy weapons option exists on the TT, too (at least with Forgeworld lists). So, yeah, they do have access. EDIT: In fact, a lot of this is why in my headcanon/fanfiction, the multilaser does indeed exist more commonly alongside the other heavy crew/vehicle/turret options in Guard/PDF/etc. It's also why my Tau Fire Warrior squads come with a two-Tau burst cannon team, and why Black Sun squads generally come with two light stubbers as SSWs (one for each fire team). Just little things like that that GW game designers don't/can't think about.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Actually a lastalon would be more fitting as it is at least a multi shot. I was looking at a MULTI SHOT weapon. Not a one shot. REMOVED
Well it's a good job you never specified as such in your initial description then, otherwise I'd have looked pretty silly there instead of you.
Spoiler:
*psst* multilasers are still a thing
Spoiler:
*second psst* not sure you understand you're posting on 40K Background, and there's a clear disconnect between TT weapon profiles and their place/behaviour in the lore; I.e; most weapons on the TT are single shot, if you want to get technical about it
REMOVED
You do realise I name checked multilasers in my original post right? Also, as agreed earlier in the thread, hotshot volley guns are probably the weapon I was looking for.
I hate CS Goto's prose. I think he's a dreadful writer and his Blood Ravens omnibus was a real slog to get through.
However, I never understood the flak he got for suggesting Space Marines would use multilasers. They're specialists with extensive access to the Imperium's armouries. If they were facing Tyranids, or Orks, or cultists I'd absolutely expect them to deploy reliable weaponry with an exceptional rate of fire. I daresay it'd be a 'tactical' application. If only said marines could be deployed tactically in any sense on the tabletop...
Deadshot wrote: Nothing of what I mentioned is relevant to the table top. I' speaking purely in lore terms.
So, again; why did you use mobility as a counterpoint for their equivelancy (particularly in context of my post in reply to the one it was quoting)???
Especially when you follow with something that goes in line with what I was using to prove their equivelancy to begin with:
Because mobility is a factor in the fluff as well as the tabletop. I never said they weren't equally heavy, only they the tasks they are designed to carry out are completely different and trying to swap the two would be pointless. A LAscannon can't cut down an Ork horde in one pull of the trigger and a Heavy Bolter can't blast apart a heavily armoured tank in a single shot.
Space Marines can hand carry weapons designed for use by Heavy Weapons Teams of humans, such as HB, LC,Autocannons, etc. But they arent particularly mobile and dont carry them like its nothing. They are large, slow weapons that take a bit of time and positioning to get the best out of them. That is represented in the lore as well as the table.
Lascannons and HBs are nothing alike.
Something that is factually incorrect. As supported by BOTH our comments. A bread knife and a carving knife do completely different jobs. Yet to say they are nothing alike is nonsense. I think part of the problem is that you're looking at the HB as if it's an IRLMG, which is actually equivelant to 40K's stubbers, autoguns, assault cannons, etc. A HB may be decribed as an "infantry suppression" weapon, but that's only really because "infantry" can include Space Marines, Tyranids, Orks, and other stuff that, IRL, would easily pass for light and even moderately armoured targets. Against "soft" infantry/targets, a HB is way overkill and wasteful of costly resources for that job. It's better-suited to heavy infantry and light vehicles. It's not really there to be what IRLMGs are. Again, look to stubbers, autoguns - and for Marines assault cannons - for that sort of role.
Yes, a bread knife and carving knife can do the same jobs. There is not comparison here. A heavy bolter is a high ROF infantry suppression weapon and a Lascannon is a slow ROF armour buster. Yes, a bread knife and a carving knife do the same job, but a HB and a LC are neither. An LMG and a 50cal bolt action sniper can both kill infantry, but one is much better at it that the other. An LMG and a 50cal sniper can both theoretically kill an MBT (assuming that MBT is built in the rediculous way of 40k, with treads and fuel cells exposed), but one is much better at it than the other.
Your comparison of "infantry" to modern humans is irrelevant. It does not matter when comparing it to 21st century. A HB would be enough to rip apart any modern vehicle. Its irrelevant because we are dealing with 40K, not 21C. A Heavy Bolter performs the role, relative to the targets of the 41st Millennium, that a modern MG would perform on humans.
Okay, maybe if I'd said "shouldn't be there for that" rather than "they're not there for that" (which is more to do with GW game designers not really understanding weaponry that well)... otherwise - yes, it's very true. Using what's essentially an automatic RPG on anything that's soft for suppression purposes is both overkill and wasteful of resources. Extremely so. An actual MG equivelant is a much more suitable weapon for that purpose, leaving the HB for that which it's better-suited, heavy infantry and light vehicles, as I explained.
Guard infantry regiments use heavy bolters for infantry suppression in the same way that a modern soldier might use an M240B (except the heavy bolter is huge and heavy, so more like a crew served M240B). The heavy bolter is the Guard infantry machinegun basically. Heavy stubbers (equivalent to browning M2) shoot faster but are less powerful.
Yeah I already explained why this is. A lot of what passes for "infantry" in the 40K setting would easily qualify IRL as light - and sometimes even moderate - armoured targets. That doesn't make the HB a literal equivalent to an IRLMG, though, like what Deadshot had been saying.
Again, this is only relative to the targets. An actual "MG equivelent," which I can only assume you mean is a Heavy Stubber, does not have the power to perform that job against Orks, Necrons and some medium Tyranids. 40k deals with a number of possible enemy combatants with biological differences, not just humans. The HB does the JOB of a modern MG, because the basic infantry of the 40k setting is "heavy infantry." However, technological and biological upscaling means that in the setting they are light infantry. The HB is relative to the targets. Orks, for example, are all but immune to the modern assault rifle as represented by the autogun, reflected on the table by being a Toughness above the "Equals" point of the weapon, and represented in the fluff by Bolters being designed to penetrate their flesh and armour. In the same way as a HMG is designed to ensure a kill against a human by hitting with a more powerful round that necessary, the HB does the same against Orks.
Because we are dealing with 40k, not real life. Its relative.
I honestly wish standard guard had access to a heavy stubber or a crew served multilaser as a heavy weapon, I would take those over the heavy bolter any day. Guard using bolters just seems wrong to me. Bolters are a marine weapon.
There's nothing in the lore to say that they (you) can't. Pretty sure stubbers as a heavy weapons option exists on the TT, too (at least with Forgeworld lists). So, yeah, they do have access. EDIT: In fact, a lot of this is why in my headcanon/fanfiction, the multilaser does indeed exist more commonly alongside the other heavy crew/vehicle/turret options in Guard/PDF/etc. It's also why my Tau Fire Warrior squads come with a two-Tau burst cannon team, and why Black Sun squads generally come with two light stubbers as SSWs (one for each fire team). Just little things like that that GW game designers don't/can't think about.
They design an abstract and streamlined idea of warfare that appeals to a wide variety of people, from 12 year olds interested in cool looking supersoldiers and aliens, not just gun nuts who criticise the difference between A and B based on a tiny misgiving.
The reason, in real canon, that the guard use HB not stubbers, as mentioned above, is because the Stubber is too weak relative to the targets to perform duties as a suppression weapon. The HB was made as a replacement, a stronger gun for tougher targets. Just like how modern weapons were updated to keep up with improved body armour and vehicles, the Heavy Stubber became the heavy bolter.
As for Multilasers, I'm sure that the reason is due to the massive supercapacitors or whatever is required to power them for multiple high ROF bursts are not man portable. As we know from the SM Devastators, the smallest possible Lascannon, firing single shots, requires 1 Astartes to carry and almost the entirety of his backpack, while a 2 man team of humans can move and fire a Lascannon, after careful setup and bracing. They cannot carry the weapon like a rifle or bazooka the way a Space Marine can. We also know that the larger Godhammer pattern Lascannons require fuel cells the size of 4-6 Space Marines, based on the Land Raider vs Crusader pattern transport capacities, and depending if you take the capacity of a Land Raider to be 10 or 12, which varies with publications, and also whether this is an accurate or abstract representation for game purposes. Regardless, we know las weaponry requires bigger and bigger capacitors to power the stronger they get. The Hotshot Lasgun requires a large power cell backpack to operate. The tiny "magazine" isn't enough. Scaling this pack up to Multilaser scale would likely make it too large to man-carry. The Lascannon gets away with it by being a single shot or otherwise low ROF weapon so the capacitor can fire single shots fire but wouldn't be able to sustain a ML level rate.
I think that in 2nd Ed the multilaser used the same power cells as lascannon. But it still wasn't in any of the weapon teams (it was not like the current weapon teams. Maybe like modern miniguns they are not man portable. Maybe they need a rapier like track system.
Comparing a heavy bolter to a lascannon is like comparing an MG to an AT rifle in WW2. Both too big to be individual weapons, but operated by a single person and they have different jobs.
I’m going to see if I can clear some things up here. There’s a few missunderstandings that keep popping up in this thread.
Hotshot lasgun: this keeps coming up. The fact that the hotshot lasgun is arguably more powerfully then a bolter. This is due to a change in the hotshot lasgun back in 5e. Originally it was called a hellgun (High energy laser gun-helgun) and had stats that made it slightly weaker then a bolt gun (lasgun: 24”, str:3, ap:-, RF. hellgun: 24” str:3, ap:5+, RF. boltgun: str:4, ap:5+, RF). At the same time as the plastic stormtroopers (militarum temptestus) was released the hellgun was changed to hot shot lasgun (hellgun: 24” str:3, ap:5+, RF. Hotshot lasgun: 24”, str:3, ap:3+, RF). The new hotshot lasgun was straight up better then a boltgun except when facing hordes of lightly armoured enemies. The original intention was that the boltgun was to be the most powerful non-specialist weapon (plasma gun/meltagun/storm bolter) the Imperium has. With the inclusion of the hotshot lasgun this was no longer true. Space marines, originally supposed to be armed with the best weapons in the Imperium, wasn’t given any hotshot lasgun equivalent (with the exception of sternguard veterans special ammo). Since then this has been a subject of discussion. Why don’t astartes have hotshot lasguns? Because they are supposed to be weaker then a boltgun.
TLDR: Gw screwed up hot shot lasguns and never fixed them. Bolters are supposed to be more powerful then hotshot lasguns.
Multi lasers: the multi laser has never been given an AM heavy weapons team model or an astartes devastator model. For the astartes I assume that the heavy bolter and plasma canon fulfill its battlefield role well enough. If not the astartes frequently makes use of the assault canon which is more powerfull then the multi laser. Apart from that I can’t think of any lore justification why it’s not used by the marines or by the guard heavy weapons teams.
TLDR: don’t know really. Comparatively not very powerfull for its size? Plasma canon/assult canon does a better job.
Heavy stubber: As others have pointed out these are actually FW options for AM heavy weapon teams. Most notably the DKoK come with them. For whatever reason this is not represented in the codex. The guard does in fact use them extensively. Space marines does not because the heavy bolter does the same job better.
Shhhh! Don't point out obvious things that exist and match what they're describing... this one's feelings are delicate.
Don't you know? Marines using Multilasers is totally a thing, while they backflip onto Razorbacks!
Only if they’re in Terminator armour.
Spoiler:
(This stuff is from a short story that was so factually incorrect it’s a meme at this point)
Edit: small rant. The hotshot lasgun was lorewise, in both the DH roleplay games, the codex and described in BL published books originally just a laspack that was overcharged. It would empty its magazine in a single powerfull shot that was STILL WEAKER THEN A BOLT SHELL. A kind of last ditch measure guards could use in a tight situation. Throw your mag into a fire, let it get into hotshotmode, fire and then discard the pack. Hotshot lasgun packs where one use only and had to be discarded after use. A laspack could also be overcharged to decrease the clip size but deliver a slightly more powerfull shot. This decreased the guns reliability though and the lasgun would frequently jam or break if overcharged or hot shot mags where used. Remember that these where all just variations of the guards standard las pack. No different manufacturing needed, all was in how you charged the pack. Since 5ed the lore on lasguns has been very contradictory in this regard
Edit 2: TLDR: GW, check your own lore before you change things.
How has this discussion gone on this long. Marines have boltguns because they are better and they always have. Las guns could be better but they aren’t allowed to be. In game or fluff, bolters are better. Las guns are cheap and simple. Minimal maintanance and easy resupply. U can recharge a las gun cell by putting it in a fire. It is explained in so many buts of fluff why guards use lasguns and marines bolters. Real life has nothing to do with it, as neither bolters nor lasguns exist. (Grenade launchers aren’t bolters).
Tygre wrote: Back in the day (2nd ed and Necromunda) boltguns and hotshot lasguns were exactly the same. In Necromunda they even both had the same ammo roll, 6+.
SM ammo takes up LOTS of space, and fighting orks I just don't think they realistically can carry enough ammo, to fight a huge ork army, even if they allied themselves with more chapters, that's why I think it would be more suited for IG to let them have 7.62 rounds and 50 cal for mounted guns, and let the tanks and artillery do the main aoe damage.
Where SM should rely on the single marine to do the main bulk of damage and can stay out for prolonged period of time solo, besides they're supposed to be futuristic soldiers, so anything las would be more fitting for them.
I like to believe Bolters have intergrated/underslung lasguns.
You know those little rods sticking out under the barrel of a bolter? That's the las lens! Draws power from the marines main systems to fire when the bolter is out of ammo or stealth is required.
Anfauglir wrote: There's nothing in the lore to say that they (you) can't. Pretty sure stubbers as a heavy weapons option exists on the TT, too (at least with Forgeworld lists). So, yeah, they do have access. EDIT: In fact, a lot of this is why in my headcanon/fanfiction, the multilaser does indeed exist more commonly alongside the other heavy crew/vehicle/turret options in Guard/PDF/etc. It's also why my Tau Fire Warrior squads come with a two-Tau burst cannon team, and why Black Sun squads generally come with two light stubbers as SSWs (one for each fire team). Just little things like that that GW game designers don't/can't think about.
Standard codex guard has no option to take stubbers in a heavy weapons team. Even in the FW index I think the only options are krieg heavy weapons squad that can take a twin linked heavy stubber. So unless you want to play krieg...
Every book about IG I have ever read has them using heavy bolters in place of machine guns. Multilasers are only mentioned as vehicle weapons.
A heavy bolter is a guard machine gun. Functionally, a heavy bolter is not comparable to a modern machinegun, however due to the nature of the threats that the IG often face, the heavy bolter is used in that role.
Again, I really wish guard didn't get access to bolt weaponry. It would separate them more from space marines, and I think the SM would really appreciate normal humans keeping their grubby hands off of their holy guns.
There’s a scene in piscina iv book where some guard complain to dark angels about them having it easier with their fancy guns and armour, the marine states how much work and expense goes into making a bolt gun and why would the imperium waste it on humans who are going to run away. Sums it up in a very arrogant way.
Andykp wrote: There’s a scene in piscina iv book where some guard complain to dark angels about them having it easier with their fancy guns and armour, the marine states how much work and expense goes into making a bolt gun and why would the imperium waste it on humans who are going to run away. Sums it up in a very arrogant way.
Arrogant from those turncoat traitors incredibly loyal Astartes . Arrogant, but true. Why give a super complex and expensive weapon to a soldier with an expected lifespan of days or weeks, whether killed by the enemy or executed for cowardice?
Corennus wrote: Um no. That's is a laser, but it's only a targeting laser like modern laser aiming on rifles.
It's my headcanon. Beside which, you're thinking of the targeting laser on top of the barrel. I'm referring to the structural bolt under the barrel. Good dismissal though.
Andykp wrote: There’s a scene in piscina iv book where some guard complain to dark angels about them having it easier with their fancy guns and armour, the marine states how much work and expense goes into making a bolt gun and why would the imperium waste it on humans who are going to run away. Sums it up in a very arrogant way.
Arrogant from those turncoat traitors incredibly loyal Astartes . Arrogant, but true. Why give a super complex and expensive weapon to a soldier with an expected lifespan of days or weeks, whether killed by the enemy or executed for cowardice?
Yeah, the guardsman is a disposable part of the lasgun.
Andykp wrote: There’s a scene in piscina iv book where some guard complain to dark angels about them having it easier with their fancy guns and armour, the marine states how much work and expense goes into making a bolt gun and why would the imperium waste it on humans who are going to run away. Sums it up in a very arrogant way.
Andykp wrote: There’s a scene in piscina iv book where some guard complain to dark angels about them having it easier with their fancy guns and armour, the marine states how much work and expense goes into making a bolt gun and why would the imperium waste it on humans who are going to run away. Sums it up in a very arrogant way.
Nerak wrote: Space marines have long las sniper rifles. The guard has solid projectile sniper rifles. Wrap your head around that one!
When did that happen? Last time I read the fluff properly, Ratlings and Space Marine scouts both used needle rifles (which use a laser to propel the projectile, which is why the Space Marine Scouts' weapon looks awfully like a beefed-up lasgun).
Going by the miniatures, the power cells for a multilaser are the same size as the ones for a lascannon, at least on a Sentinel. The only reason I can think of why it's never been depicted as a man-portable heavy weapon is the multilaser's original description in the 1st edition rulebook, where it's described as a large and bulky weapon used in fixed emplacements and vehicles (a bit like the autocannon, which was originally supposed to represent the main gun on a tank; the battlecannon came along later).
Ian Watson's Space Marine has the protagonists as Imperial Fists, undergoing vacuum/zero-G combat training in power armour as part of their progression from Scouts, using lasguns with the power dialled down.
w1zard wrote: Actually, bolters shouldn't have bullet drop over distance. The gyros within each bolt should compensate for the gravity by angling ever so slightly downward. This is true for pretty much everything such as temperature, humidity, wind, Coriolis effect etc. The only thing a space marine should have to take into account is travel time.
Speaking as someone with actual experience designing and building firearms, no.
Fluff tells us that, excepting very rare examples, bolt shells are not guided. You say "missile" in your later post, but "rocket" is far more accurate.
As such, any talk of microthruster stabilisation is immediately ruled out. This means you want spin stabilisation (which immediately means no consistent "down")... and also, you actually want a very fast and brief burn. You want the kinetic energy and velocity immediately to maximise impact and minimise time to target. (This is how Gyrojets worked).
Another problem with long burn times can be seen with the RPG-7, which behaves really weirdly in cross winds. Normally you'd expect a projectile to drift with the wind, but the rockets actually turn into the wind, because the wind pushes the back of the rocket more than the front, like a weather vane, then the thrust pushes it into the wind.
Rapid thrust means maximum penetration, shortest time to target, and avoids weird rocketry ballistics.
Given that the bolter was designed by people who actually had a dang clue, this is and will always be my interpretation. It's a valid way to offset a large amount of the recoil that would result from trying to drive such large projectiles at rifle velocities, so you could perfectly reasonably believe that such a design would have existed in STCs - a generously lethal weapon that should hopefully be enough to kill many varieties of potentially unknown xenos, while providing a compromise between the pros/cons of traditional (high recoil) and rocket (low velocity at short range) propulsion for such a projectile.
(Admittedly, you'd probably still need power armour to be able to practically use one on rapid fire in combat, but I'd personally imagine that a boltgun has recoil maybe on the higher end of 12 gauge shotgun slugs).
Although it has no need to exist in our world, if you think about it, it is actually a surprisingly logical weapon to exist if you're sending people out to explore the universe. And with the Imperium largely having to scrounge from long forgotten technology, it does then make sense that you might give such a design to your super soldiers.
MarcoSkoll wrote: Speaking as someone with actual experience designing and building firearms, no.
Fluff tells us that, excepting very rare examples, bolt shells are not guided. You say "missile" in your later post, but "rocket" is far more accurate.
As such, any talk of microthruster stabilisation is immediately ruled out. This means you want spin stabilisation (which immediately means no consistent "down")... and also, you actually want a very fast and brief burn. You want the kinetic energy and velocity immediately to maximise impact and minimise time to target. (This is how Gyrojets worked).
Another problem with long burn times can be seen with the RPG-7, which behaves really weirdly in cross winds. Normally you'd expect a projectile to drift with the wind, but the rockets actually turn into the wind, because the wind pushes the back of the rocket more than the front, like a weather vane, then the thrust pushes it into the wind.
Rapid thrust means maximum penetration, shortest time to target, and avoids weird rocketry ballistics.
Given that the bolter was designed by people who actually had a dang clue, this is and will always be my interpretation. It's a valid way to offset a large amount of the recoil that would result from trying to drive such large projectiles at rifle velocities, so you could perfectly reasonably believe that such a design would have existed in STCs - a generously lethal weapon that should hopefully be enough to kill many varieties of potentially unknown xenos, while providing a compromise between the pros/cons of traditional (high recoil) and rocket (low velocity at short range) propulsion for such a projectile.
(Admittedly, you'd probably still need power armour to be able to practically use one on rapid fire in combat, but I'd personally imagine that a boltgun has recoil maybe on the higher end of 12 gauge shotgun slugs).
Although it has no need to exist in our world, if you think about it, it is actually a surprisingly logical weapon to exist if you're sending people out to explore the universe. And with the Imperium largely having to scrounge from long forgotten technology, it does then make sense that you might give such a design to your super soldiers.
If you truly had experience building firearms, you would know that the longer the impulse, the higher velocities and greater kinetic energy. This:
MarcoSkoll wrote: You want the kinetic energy and velocity immediately to maximise impact and minimise time to target.
Makes me really think you have no idea what you are talking about.
I envision bolts constantly accelerating until the moment of impact, or until they run out of fuel. Maximum kinetic energy, and the ability to correct in flight. I do not see them as advanced versions of gyrojet guns of the 70s, but rather as ~20mm smart-RPG machineguns. The old gyrojets started their rocket acceleration in the barrel, whereas a bolter has a conventional propellant charge (presumably supersonic) to get the projectile out of the barrel before the gyrojets activate mid-air.
Northern85Star wrote: I dont know how much more 40k lore i can take xD It gets worse the more i get to know!
Boltguns fire armour penetrating rockets?! xD
S4 0 AP
When is GW going to do a game with immersive lore? That is, integrity between the books and the battlefield. Never, is when!
They used to be AP5, ignoring anything less than Fire Warrior/Eldar Guardian armour, such as Imperial guard flak armour, most Orks and tyranid swarms, etc. To put in context, Imperial flak armour in pre-8th was a 5+ save, capable of saving vs Frag Grenades and Heavy stubbers (equivilent of a modern 50cal HMG). So they were accurately represented.
8th ed throws out lore representation in favour of balance and brownnosing up the new Bolt Rifle as the armour puncturing beast.
Nah, they used to be S4 with a -1 save modifer, before that silly AP system was introduced in 3rd.
I mean, who would design an armour system where the properties of a weapon wouldn't normally affect how much armour it penetrated...
w1zard wrote: If you truly had experience building firearms
Custom and specialist airguns primarily. An example you might have heard of (although to be fair, my role on this one was only a very limited consultancy) is the "Eclipse" launcher, which was used a few times on Mythbusters.
In any case, while the US does not legally consider airguns to be firearms, the UK does, and the differences for these purposes are meaningless. Whether the projectile is driven by pre-compressed air or a combustible propellant has absolutely no effect on the external ballistics. Even if it did make a difference, the material I've studied on external ballistics is primarily researched using powder firearms.
you would know that the longer the impulse, the higher velocities and greater kinetic energy.
... if the force of the impulse is the same, in which case you have a larger impulse and a completely inaccurate comparison.
The bolt only has very limited volume for rocket fuel, and so a limited total impulse. Depending on the exact composition and grain of the rocket fuel, you can either burn that very quickly or very slowly.
Now, in reality, different propellants don't have exactly the same energy density, but the differences are relatively small, so we can generally assume that a fast burning propellant and a slow burning propellant will convey the same total impulse, even if they take a different time to do so.
Let's say that we have a 0.05kg bolt, with a muzzle velocity of 400 m/s from the "kicker" charge part of the hybrid propulsion, with our rocket propellant providing an impulse of 10 Ns in flight.
Rocket A provides that impulse over a tenth of a second. Rocket B provides its impulse over 1 second.
As such, Rocket A provides 100 N of thrust, and Rocket B 10 N of thrust, equating to accelerations of 2000 m/s^2 and 200 m/s^2. However, still exactly the same total impulse.
Ignoring aerodynamic drag for a moment, we can easily use the familiar equation v^2= u^2+ (2 * a * s) to calculate the velocity of the bolt at a distance of 50 metres. (Theoretically, we should be using the rocket equation, but we'll consider the mass of the propellant to be relatively negligible).
At 50 metres, Bolt A will have a velocity of 600 m/s, with its fuel *just* burning out (ergo, time to target is 0.1 seconds).
Bolt B will have a velocity of 424 m/s, massively lower. Time to target has been ~0.121 seconds.
Now, once you consider aerodynamics, which is naturally covered under f = (0.5 * Cd * A * D * V^2), drag forces are higher at increased velocities, so at long distances, a projectile that elects to maintain a lower velocity, using its rocket propellant more to offset drag than provide kinetic energy will see a higher velocity past a certain point, but its average velocity to that distance will have been lower, and therefore a higher time to target and more ballistic drop.
Looking into that, Bolts, in general, appear to have a ballistic shape not dissimilar to the G1 reference shape:
... so you know what, just for the giggles, let's actually use the G1 drag curves so that we can actually fully accurately model the projectile as it travels through the transonic region at longer distances.
(I would normally prefer to use the G7 shape for most modern projectiles, but bolts are always shown with flat bases, so G1 is going to be more accurate. I'll be honest, I'm not *entirely* sure how the rocket thrust from the base might affect the vortices around the base of the projectile, but to hell with the idea of setting up a full fluid dynamics calculation for an internet argument).
At this point, the maths becomes a bit complicated to post here, as it involves lookup tables to compare the projectile's current Mach # to look up its current drag coefficient. (I'm having to ignore normal precalculated ballistic tables,as they're not valid here because of the rocket thrust).
However, if you really feel the need to check my calculations, I'm assuming a projectile mass of 0.05kg with a diameter of 19mm, with an air density of 1.2 kg/m^3 with the speed of sound being 343 m/s.
This is the version of the G1 drag table I'm using, which is the most complete version of it I've managed to assemble. Although the chart's data points are very dense in the range we're considering, I'm interpolating to avoid possible errors in that respect:
Once we consider this, Bolt A will hit a peak velocity of ~545 m/s at a distance of ~46 m
Bolt B will hit its peak velocity... well, actually at the muzzle, as the propellant's force is actually slightly outmatched by the drag.
At a distance of 245m, Bolt B will actually be moving faster, but it has still taken 18.6% longer to get there, meaning about 41% more ballistic drop.
Time to target (and thus ballistic drop) is only better past 565m (which is getting to be very long range for a small arm) by which point Bolt B has long since burnt out (it did so at ~363 metres).
If you're assuming that you're getting the same thrust force regardless of burn time, then yes, a longer burn time may seem beneficial, but this simply doesn't hold up. Faster burning fuels create a greater thrust force.
If you particularly object to my parameters, then feel free to re-simulate with other variables (or account for other factors like the consumption of propellant mass, which I've currently considered to be negligible), but I am going to insist that in all cases the total mass and impulse of the propellant is maintained, because otherwise it's not an equivalent comparison.
I do not see them as advanced versions of gyrojet guns of the 70s, but rather as ~20mm smart-RPG machineguns.
I'd reckon I'd be on a pretty safe bet if I were to say I could cough up a whole lot more fluff sources to support my interpretation of them than you can for yours.
Boltguns are only "crude" if you think a 19x165mm HEAP mini-autocannon firing supersonic to hypersonic rounds capable of penetrating several inches of plasteel is "crude". Boltguns are actually incredibly fiendish weapons well suited for dealing with what marines fight (Orks and Nids along with rebel humans) and even pose a serious threat to light vehicles and aircraft.
A lasgun, while an effective weapon for basic infantry due to its miraculous logistical properties, is a pretty poor weapon for shock troops considering as an energy weapon it will be losing power over range, performs worse in humid/gaseous environments and might not even function underwater, either punches a small hole through something or causes a very small explosion via boiling flesh, and it takes a lot of lasfire to put down something like a Tyranid Warrior, Genestealer, Ork Nob, or Black Legionaire.
Also the Imperium did originally outfit Astartes with las-esque weapons, Space Marines originally used Volkite. However Volkites were unfeasible logistically due to extremely difficult assembly slowing their production down, so they were scrapped, turned into a specialist weapon, and replaced with the boltgun.
And lasguns really aren't that long ranged. Siege of Castellax gives us a good example of this, with the range of a long-las maxing out at 2 kilometers. The Iron Warrior Champion however had a bolt pistol and was a crack shot, so his hypersonic bolt stretched out to 2.5 kilometers and downed the rebelling Janissaries.
If you're talking about Lascannons, those are very cumbersome and slow-firing anti-tank weapons, and not well suited for shooting out aircraft. Remember, a lot of aircraft in 40k are capable of near hypersonic speeds at high altitudes, and are pretty durable too. Using a lascannon to punch a hole through one might not even down it, and just hitting 40k aircraft is probably going to be a very hard feat for a marine to accomplish. You're better off leaving AA to people with homing missiles or proper AA batteries such as a Wyvern.
w1zard wrote: If you truly had experience building firearms
Custom and specialist airguns primarily. An example you might have heard of (although to be fair, my role on this one was only a very limited consultancy) is the "Eclipse" launcher, which was used a few times on Mythbusters.
In any case, while the US does not legally consider airguns to be firearms, the UK does, and the differences for these purposes are meaningless. Whether the projectile is driven by pre-compressed air or a combustible propellant has absolutely no effect on the external ballistics. Even if it did make a difference, the material I've studied on external ballistics is primarily researched using powder firearms.
you would know that the longer the impulse, the higher velocities and greater kinetic energy.
... if the force of the impulse is the same, in which case you have a larger impulse and a completely inaccurate comparison. The bolt only has very limited volume for rocket fuel, and so a limited total impulse. Depending on the exact composition and grain of the rocket fuel, you can either burn that very quickly or very slowly. Now, in reality, different propellants don't have exactly the same energy density, but the differences are relatively small, so we can generally assume that a fast burning propellant and a slow burning propellant will convey the same total impulse, even if they take a different time to do so.
Let's say that we have a 0.05kg bolt, with a muzzle velocity of 400 m/s from the "kicker" charge part of the hybrid propulsion, with our rocket propellant providing an impulse of 10 Ns. Rocket A provides that impulse over a tenth of a second. Rocket B provides its impulse over 1 second.
As such, Rocket A provides 100 N of thrust, and Rocket B 10 N of thrust, equating to accelerations of 2000 m/s^2 and 200 m/s^2. However, still exactly the same total impulse. Ignoring aerodynamic drag for a moment, we can easily use the familiar equation v^2= u^2+ (2 * a * s) to calculate the velocity of the bolt at a distance of 50 metres. (Theoretically, we should be using the rocket equation, but we'll consider the mass of the propellant to be relatively negligible).
At 50 metres, Bolt A will have a velocity of 600 m/s, with its fuel *just* burning out (ergo, time to target is 0.1 seconds). Bolt B will have a velocity of 424 m/s, massively lower. Time to target has been ~0.121 seconds.
Now, once you consider aerodynamics, which is naturally covered under f = (0.5 * Cd * A * D * V^2), drag forces are higher at increased velocities, so at long distances, a projectile that elects to maintain a lower velocity, using its rocket propellant more to offset drag than provide kinetic energy will see a higher velocity past a certain point, but its average velocity to that distance will have been lower, and therefore a higher time to target and more ballistic drop.
Looking into that, Bolts, in general, appear to have a ballistic shape not dissimilar to the G1 reference shape: ... so you know what, just for the giggles, let's actually use the G1 drag curves so that we can actually fully accurately model the projectile as it travels through the transonic region at longer distances. (I would normally prefer to use the G7 shape for most modern projectiles, but bolts are always shown with flat bases, so G1 is going to be more accurate. I'll be honest, I'm not *entirely* sure how the rocket thrust from the base might affect the vortices around the base of the projectile, but to hell with the idea of setting up a full fluid dynamics calculation for an internet argument).
At this point, the maths becomes a bit complicated to post here, as it involves lookup tables to compare the projectile's current Mach # to look up its current drag coefficient. (I'm having to ignore normal precalculated ballistic tables,as they're not valid here because of the rocket thrust).
However, if you really feel the need to check my calculations, I'm assuming a projectile mass of 0.05kg with a diameter of 19mm, with an air density of 1.2 kg/m^3 with the speed of sound being 343 m/s. This is the version of the G1 drag table I'm using, which was the most complete version of it I've managed to assemble. Although the chart's data points are very dense in the range we're considering, I'm interpolating to avoid possible errors in that respect:
Once we consider this, Bolt A will hit a peak velocity of ~545 m/s at a distance of ~46 m Bolt B will hit its peak velocity... well, actually at the muzzle, as the propellant's force is actually slightly outmatched by the drag.
At a distance of 245m, Bolt B will actually be moving faster, but it has still taken 18.6% longer to get there, meaning about 41% more ballistic drop. Time to target (and thus ballistic drop) is only better past 565m (which is getting to be very long range for a small arm) by which point Bolt B has long since burnt out (it did so at ~363 metres).
If you're assuming that you're getting the same thrust force regardless of burn time, then yes, a longer burn time may seem beneficial, but this simply doesn't hold up. Faster burning fuels create a greater thrust force.
If you particularly object to my parameters, then feel free to re-simulate with other variables (or account for other factors like the consumption of propellant mass, which I've currently considered to be negligible), but I am going to insist that in all cases the total mass and impulse of the propellant is maintained, because otherwise it's not an equivalent comparison.
I do not see them as advanced versions of gyrojet guns of the 70s, but rather as ~20mm smart-RPG machineguns.
I'd reckon I'd be on a pretty safe bet if I were to say I could cough up a whole lot more fluff sources to support my interpretation of them than you can for yours.
We already know how fast bolts are, the novels mention them to be supersonic/hypersonic. I also calculated the size of an "actual" bolt based on GW's numbers and Jes Goodwin's art, and the result is a 19.05x165mm or so round. It could be anywhere from around 155mm to 170mm, but unless bolt mags are bloody weird, it's probably 165mm.
Granted I'm terrible at drawing bullets and I only have MS Paint to work with, but I came up with this based on Goodwin's standardized artwork used in every edition and the bolts we see in stormbolters and the bolt models from the game Deathwing. Most of this is probably the kicker charge, but it's over 90 cubic centimeters of free space for the kicker charge. Considering how obscenely powerful Imperial fuel is (such as promethium), that's going to be a pretty big boom.
Wyzilla wrote: We already know how fast bolts are, the novels mention them to be supersonic/hypersonic.
Given the general consistency of the novels and the general firearms illiteracy of many BL authors, that's not very usable. (I reread Eisenhorn a while back because someone asked questions about his weapons, and the amount Abnett mangles the terminology is painful).
It's also a very vague description, and my ability to calculate these things would get much more ropey once into a truly hypersonic band, as there's relatively little study of ballistics at those velocities - even very fast APFSDS rounds fired by tanks (which have the advantage of very long barrels to accelerate their projectiles much faster than normal rifles) aren't even properly into the region.
Anyway, I'll admit that I picked relatively low values for my calculations, but if I pick higher values, it actually skews more in favour of a rapid burn.
If I pick 600 m/s as a muzzle velocity, and give the bolts 40 Ns of rocket propellant, then Bolt A is faster out to ~463 metres, and ahead out to 889 metres, and that's really getting a pretty long way for weapons where some of the design purpose must have been a weapon usable at close quarters.
Even if we calculate all the way out to 2 kilometres, Bolt B coasting rather than sprinting the distance still only makes it a fairly mild 13 m/s faster at 2000 metres.
(For reference, the peak velocity of Bolt A with these parameters would be ~1223 m/s at about 90 metres, which isn't technically hypersonic, but some people might describe it as so).
I also calculated the size of an "actual" bolt based on GW's numbers and Jes Goodwin's art, and the result is a 19.05x165mm or so round.
I can't actually recall having seen any art that assumes those proportions. Generally, bolt rounds I've seen in the art are proportioned more like a mix between pistol and shotgun rounds.
w1zard wrote: I envision bolts constantly accelerating until the moment of impact, or until they run out of fuel.
Any rocket propelled object will reach max speed, there are such weird things like wind resistance and max thrust, like it has always been since the days of rocket engines invention at WW2, thanks mr Hitler for the rocket power!
MarcoSkoll wrote: The bolt only has very limited volume for rocket fuel, and so a limited total impulse.
Why are you assuming that? What if in 40K land there is an extremely high-energy density fuel that is capable of burning very slowly and in an extremely controlled manner? Why not assume functionally unlimited fuel for negligible weight?
I am operating under the assumption that a bolt can reach maximum velocity in earth atmosphere whilst expanding only a fraction of its fuel.
Let's say that we have a 0.05kg bolt, with a muzzle velocity of 400 m/s from the "kicker" charge part of the hybrid propulsion, with our rocket propellant providing an impulse of 10 Ns in flight.
Rocket A provides that impulse over a tenth of a second. Rocket B provides its impulse over 1 second.
Again... why? Why not 1,000 NS total impulse over 100 seconds, or 10,000 NS total impulse over 100 seconds? You are making assumptions for real life materials that may not be applicable.
Titan armor is supposedly lighter than titanium despite titanium being only of the lowest atomic mass metals on the periodic table.
Your math seems to check out, but I am questioning the assumptions on which your numbers are based. I was following until the lookup tables, I understand that air resistance is a b**** to calculate but I don't mind admitting that is a little outside of my depth, I only took up to calculus based mechanics of solids and fluids in college.
MarcoSkoll wrote: I'd reckon I'd be on a pretty safe bet if I were to say I could cough up a whole lot more fluff sources to support my interpretation of them than you can for yours.
You are more than welcome to believe that. I however, have always envisioned bolts to be the equivalent of mini smart rocket-grenades that auto-correct slightly in flight. See my comparison of the gyro-rocket guns of the 70s to what we know about how boltguns work in 40k and you will see they are vastly different.
w1zard wrote: I envision bolts constantly accelerating until the moment of impact, or until they run out of fuel.
Any rocket propelled object will reach max speed, there are such weird things like wind resistance and max thrust, like it has always been since the days of rocket engines invention at WW2, thanks mr Hitler for the rocket power!
True, it is still constant acceleration matched by an equal and opposite reaction though.
w1zard wrote: What if in 40K land there is an extremely high-energy density fuel that is capable of burning very slowly and in an extremely controlled manner? Why not assume functionally unlimited fuel for negligible weight?
Because if they manage to push beyond what we currently know to be possible regarding the amount of energy tied up in chemical bonds, then those advances would almost certainly equally affect the development of rapid burning fuel. (And likely also high explosives and conventional firearm propellants).
If one of these things improved by a massive margin, it would almost certainly be through a development that would affect them all similarly, leaving things on level footing. With no canonical source to suggest that somehow they've managed to massively improve one area of chemistry but not several very closely related ones, the only reasonable assumption is that normal principles roughly hold.
You are making assumptions for real life materials that may not be applicable.
Not at all. Although any mathematical demonstration required choosing some actual values to work with, the general principles in question would apply even with wildly different values.
The example values were actually chosen pretty arbitrarily, me picking some easy-to-work with values that were vaguely in the right ball park
See my comparison of the gyro-rocket guns of the 70s to what we know about how boltguns work in 40k and you will see they are vastly different.
Not really. It's just a case of integrating two different forms of propulsion, which is not unknown in the firearms world.
While the world has never had a need to create a small arm capable of such a feat (although it'd be possible), the idea of hybrid propulsion is used in some light weapons.
If we are assuming they are using modern technology you would be absolutely correct in your conclusions. However this is 40,000 years in the future and we have to assume they have something better than modern rocket propellant. Plug 1,000 NS total impulse at 10 seconds of burn time into your math and see what you get.
Humans in the 40k universe have made improvements on this front. I highly doubt space marines are still using semtex and Imperial Space ships use modern day rocket fuel to do maneuvers.
If we are assuming modern technology then titans would collapse under their own weight and lasguns couldn't even exist.
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
Civilian or not is not even in the slightest a matter - space marines simply ignore pretty much all of it because they are so much trained and genetically upgraded they compensate beyond anything any human being could for any disadvantaging external interference. However, unlike IG infantrymen, they are able to fire in full auto little RPG rockets while mastering the recoil, able to carry trcuks of ammunitions if they wish. And you miss a huge point in current fluff: lasgun, as reliable as they might be, lack stopping power and dramatically lack armour penetration. By fluff standards, it is virtually impossible to punch your las round through a SMC power armour because it would require you to fire repeatedly at the very same spot a couple of time. Other issues in several environements and ranges were also dealt with in previous posts.
On the other hand, as far as IG is concerned, they don't care, because they litterally are supposed to fire in the tens or dozens soldiers at once. What they do care about however, is that laser technology is reliable to the point of being "idiotproof" (thanks for the expression), light, easy to (re)supply, and easy to manufacture.
And yes, the space marines do have other laser weapons, but those are AT weapons where standard solid rounds would not be as powerful. As far as basic flashlight/Bolter is concerned, the bolter is clearly the superior piece of armament in terms of firepower. So no, by current fluff standards there are no reasons the space marines SHOULD have las weaponry over IG. They COULD obviously, why not, but no further.
w1zard wrote: If we are assuming they are using modern technology you would be absolutely correct in your conclusions.
But we're *not*. The figures are arbitrary.
If I plug your 1000 Ns total impulse for 10 seconds of burn into the equation, and continuing with the postulate that faster burning fuels are also better, an equivalent fuel with a 1 second total burn time... and I don't know, let's say a 1200 m/s initial muzzle velocity, while we're working with the idea that Imperial propellants are really energetic (which would create a really nasty recoil that would kind of defeat the point of two-stage propulsion)...
... well, now I'm having to extend the drag chart by looking up numbers for hypersonic drag (which my calculators don't normally cover, because bullets don't normally go this fast), because the faster bolt is getting *REALLY* fast now - we're talking so fast that it would actually explode on impact from just sheer velocity, so we're starting to see a ludicrous disconnect with the lethality that you'd get from stalker silenced shells (which are explicitly subsonic).
Anyway, now the fast-burn bolt has a higher velocity out to ~3870 metres, and a better time to ~5030 metres. The more we exaggerate the figures, the more it actually skews in favour of the fast burn bolts.
Just in case you think I'm deliberately pushing up the muzzle velocity at the same time because it favours my point, let's drop the muzzle velocity massively down to just 200 m/s (way lower than can be done with modern propellants, so we're now having to make some really contrived assumptions) and keep the super rocket fuels you're proposing.
The fast-burn bolt is still faster to ~3710 metres and sooner to ~4930 metres. Better and better rocket propellants actually favour fast-burn acceleration more and more in terms of velocity and time to target.
But okay, let's skew things more in your favour. Let's push the muzzle velocity back to a more plausible 600 m/s, but let's suppose that the fast-burn fuel is only half as efficient as the slow-burn, generating only 500 Ns of thrust over its 1 second burn.
It is still faster to ~2620 metres, and sooner to ~3515 m.
Okay, what about only 20% as efficient, only 200 Ns of thrust, leaving it with only twice the thrust of the slow-burn bolt, compared to just a tenth of the burn time?
Still faster to ~1518 metres, and sooner to ~2065 m.
I don't really know how much more I can do to demonstrate the point. I'm now supposing the super rocket propellants you seem to want, and even making the unrequested (and rather unreasonable) assumption of a very low initial velocity and that the fast-burn propellant has only a fraction of the energy of the slow-burn propellant.
Even if you want guided bolts, they'd get to targets at just about any common engagement range more energetically with a fast burn and then using fin guidance. (Hell, even if they used rocket guidance, even the 20% efficient fast burn bolts here would still be able to course correct out to somewhere beyond 1300 metres. The 100% efficient fast-burn bolts would be able to course correct out past 3 kilometres*)
*And yes, they're only burning for one second. I said they were going REALLY fast (but this is still within what rocket engines are capable of). Peak velocity is bouncing off Mach 10, and at those kinds of speeds, even a completely basic plastic projectile does things like this, leaving craters several inches deep in aluminium armour. Supposing fuels of this kind of energy density really starts to break the consistency with other lore - stalker silenced shells would be catastrophically outmatched, power armour would be useless**, etc.
** And in response to any cry of "But plasteel/ceramite/etc armour is stronger": At these velocities, it doesn't matter - when things go this fast, normal mechanical forces break down, and absolutely every material is like wet clay. Case in point: Aluminium wouldn't normally act like this under normal mechanical interaction, but it does versus anything at this kind of speed. As does copper, steel, tungsten, titanium, iridium, ceramic, concrete, wood, wet sand, whatever.
MarcoSkoll wrote: and I don't know, let's say a 1200 m/s initial muzzle velocity, while we're working with the idea that Imperial propellants are really energetic (which would create a really nasty recoil that would kind of defeat the point of two-stage propulsion)...
That seems awfully high for an initial velocity, why are you assuming it is that high? Just because we are assuming imperial propellants are energetic doesn't mean they put the same proportions in their ammunition that we do. Or that it burns as quickly. There are high energy density compounds that burn extremely slowly, C4 for instance. Yea, slow burning propellants are terrible for firearms but they could use a faster burn proellant for the initial kick out of the barrel and a slower burn propellant for the rocket on the back of the bolt.
BTW, a 1,200 m/s muzzle velocity with a 0.1 kg bolt, (assuming a boltgun weighs 10kg, which is not unreasonable considering their size and material) would generate a recoil of 12 m/s in the opposite direction (conservation of momentum, p=m*v). Assuming the space marine stops the recoil in .1 seconds, this would mean a space marine need only exert a force of 1,200 N for .1 seconds. This is not unreasonable considering that heavyweight boxers (unaugmented humans) regularly punch at 3,000 N, and as high as 5,000 N. A genetically modified space marine in power armor would most likely feel this like a normal human would feel the recoil of a .22 rifle.
MarcoSkoll wrote: Just in case you think I'm deliberately pushing up the muzzle velocity at the same time because it favours my point, let's drop the muzzle velocity massively down to just 200 m/s (way lower than can be done with modern propellants, so we're now having to make some really contrived assumptions) and keep the super rocket fuels you're proposing.
Again, what? I feel stupid for asking, but you are aware that subsonic ammunition exists with modern day propellants right? 200 m/s muzzle velocity is absolutely achievable with modern tech.
MarcoSkoll wrote: Anyway, now the fast-burn bolt has a higher velocity out to ~3870 metres, and a better time to ~5030 metres. The more we exaggerate the figures, the more it actually skews in favour of the fast burn bolts.
Just in case you think I'm deliberately pushing up the muzzle velocity at the same time because it favours my point, let's drop the muzzle velocity massively down to just 200 m/s (way lower than can be done with modern propellants, so we're now having to make some really contrived assumptions) and keep the super rocket fuels you're proposing.
The fast-burn bolt is still faster to ~3710 metres and sooner to ~4930 metres. Better and better rocket propellants actually favour fast-burn acceleration more and more in terms of velocity and time to target.
But okay, let's skew things more in your favour. Let's push the muzzle velocity back to a more plausible 600 m/s, but let's suppose that the fast-burn fuel is only half as efficient as the slow-burn, generating only 500 Ns of thrust over its 1 second burn.
It is still faster to ~2620 metres, and sooner to ~3515 m.
Okay, what about only 20% as efficient, only 200 Ns of thrust, leaving it with only twice the thrust of the slow-burn bolt, compared to just a tenth of the burn time?
Still faster to ~1518 metres, and sooner to ~2065 m.
I don't really know how much more I can do to demonstrate the point. I'm now supposing the super rocket propellants you seem to want, and even making the unrequested (and rather unreasonable) assumption of a very low initial velocity and that the fast-burn propellant has only a fraction of the energy of the slow-burn propellant.
Actually, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was never claiming that a "slow burn bolt" would reach it's target faster than a "fast burn bolt". I was claiming that a slow burn bolt with greater fuel had the potential of reaching a higher total velocity over a long flight time, assuming the same energy density for fuel and neglible fuel weight. 100 NS total fuel at 1 second is 100 N of impulse total. 100,000 NS total fuel at 10 seconds of flight time is 10,000 N of impulse total, and while it is true that the bolt would be fighting air resistance and gravity for 10 seconds, I still think 10,000 N bolt is going to go faster than a 100 N bolt at some point on it's flight path. Guns with longer barrels have better muzzle velocities because they expose the bullet to longer impulses, in other words greater total impulse. I know that is a bit of a ridiculous example, but I hope it illustrates what I am trying to say.
MarcoSkoll wrote: Even if you want guided bolts, they'd get to targets at just about any common engagement range more energetically with a fast burn and then using fin guidance. (Hell, even if they used rocket guidance, even the 20% efficient fast burn bolts here would still be able to course correct out to somewhere beyond 1300 metres. The 100% efficient fast-burn bolts would be able to course correct out past 3 kilometres*)
I will reserve judgment on this. I don't know enough about the physics behind fin guidance to say whether rocket motor corrections or fin corrections would be more efficient in-flight. However, I always saw bolts as guided rocket propelled 20mm grenades. Almost like mini-cruise missiles without the fins.
Just out of curiosity, if the rocket motor on a bolt could correct for tumble due to air resistance, how feasible is angling the bolt ever so slightly downward to counter the effect of gravity over it's flight time? I know that is some really wonky ballistic physics, but since I seem to have an expert here I want to pick his brain.
w1zard wrote: That seems awfully high for an initial velocity, why are you assuming it is that high?
I'm not. I deliberately used a wide range of possible initial muzzle velocities across the post in order to avoid any questions of cherry picking.
And yes, I am fully aware of subsonic ammunition. Although I'll accept that my phrasing was somewhat ambiguous, the intended meaning of "way lower than can be done" was not"physically impossible to achieve", but instead "nowhere near the limit".
Obviously it's always possible to make a projectile go slowly one way or another - Nerf guns aren't known for blowing people's heads off because they can't make them weak enough.
BTW, a 1,200 m/s muzzle velocity with a 0.1 kg bolt, (assuming a boltgun weighs 10kg, which is not unreasonable considering their size and material) would generate a recoil of 12 m/s in the opposite direction (conservation of momentum, p=m*v).
Well, it gets a lot more complicated than that, as you have to also consider the mass and velocity of escaping propellant gases, which, despite a couple of grams of gas seeming trivial against bullets weighing considerably more is actually a significant part of the equation. Bolters may have very simple muzzle brakes in the form of the gas ports, but like artists love rendering (with the massive ball of flame still emerging forwards), the design wouldn't actually be that effective.
Assuming the space marine stops the recoil in .1 seconds
Then he would be knocked back 60 cm, as per s = (v * t) + (0.5 * a * t^2). He needs to stop it a lot faster than that.
It's generally better to think of recoil energy rather than recoil momentum. Energy is Force times Distance, rather than Force times Time, so this gives a better idea of how hard and far the recoil pushes you.
For the figures you picked (and ignoring the question of propellant gases - we'll assume the muzzle brake exactly breaks even on that), we'd be looking at a recoil energy of 720 joules, which is more than the muzzle energy of many pistols. It's in the ball park of getting hit by a .357 magnum, and although that doesn't obviously doesn't mean that the bolter will punch through a Space Marine's shoulder (the energy is obviously applied differently with the different velocities and areas of impact), it's still going to be fairly brutal on even their shoulders and not going to be trivially held on target.
The recoil of the .22 rifle you mention, for comparison, is going to be in the vicinity of about 0.2 to 0.5 joules, dependent on the exact bullet and rifle weight. Space marines are strong, but not two thousand times stronger than a normal human for the recoil to be that trivial.
With the 600m/s, 50 gram bolt that I used for most of the calcuations and the same 10 kilo bolter, recoil would be a rather more palatable 45 joules, generally on the upper end of "12 gauge shotgun". (Which, if you watch videos of people trying to fire a Saiga-12 on full auto* gives you a sense of how effective most humans trying to fire a bolter on full auto would be).
* The recoil control technologies like in the AA-12 shotgun are a different matter. While technically the same recoil energy is generated here, but there's a massive spring damping system inside that "catches" the recoil over about a foot, massively reducing and flattening the peak forces on the user, so giving a lower "felt" recoil. However, bolter designs wouldn't allow such a technology, not having a stock to incorporate the mechanism.
Actually, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was never claiming that a "slow burn bolt" would reach it's target faster than a "fast burn bolt". I was claiming that a slow burn bolt with greater fuel had the potential of reaching a higher total velocity over a long flight time, assuming the same energy density for fuel and neglible fuel weight.
I'm not seeing a meaningful difference. The mean velocity over a given distance is directly defined by the time it takes to cover that distance.
(And the time taken to cover the distance is what I covered in my "sooner" figures. "Faster" is the point that the slow-burn bolt starts having a higher velocity - always after the fast-burn bolt has burnt out - and therefore starting to catch up, "sooner" is the point it actually takes the lead).
Yes, at massive distances, you'd see slow-burn bolts having an advantage, but even the least favourable figures we're looking at above show fast-burn bolts to have the edge out to 2 kilometres, which is huge from the sense of actual combat distances. There's a couple of handfuls of people who've been shot at more than two kilometres, because generally people don't pick fights over salt flats with no buildings to break up the lines of sight.
Just out of curiosity, if the rocket motor on a bolt could correct for tumble due to air resistance, how feasible is angling the bolt ever so slightly downward to counter the effect of gravity over it's flight time?
Well, projectiles angling the tip upwards sort of naturally happens with rifles anyway. You have to have your bore axis pointing above what you want to hit so that as the bullet is pulled down by gravity it drops back down onto the target - with a rifle at fairly short distances, the angle is very shallow, but it does exist.
Because spin stabilisation gives the round gyroscopic stability, it keeps pointing in that same direction - it does not turn into the direction of travel as gravity starts arcing it down, so at longer distances, the nose of the bullet is actually angled above the flight path (which can complicate precise ballistic calculations at very long distances, as the airflow over the projectile changes).
The problem with rocket thrust here is that very small errors or inconsistencies in thrust magnitude or angle would heavily impact trajectory.
It's theoretically possible if we're supposing (very) smart ammunition, but this is a "if you had more money than sense" kind of "possible" - something like a smart sight that automatically measures range and compensates for the trajectory would be a much more practical and cost effective answer than having to massively increase the cost of every projectile by including guidance systems and micro-cogitators.
It would also be much easier to adapt to any given environment, just reprogramming the sights with the parameters for a given world's atmosphere, gravity and the like (or, potentially, even determining it automatically, which would be feasible for a fancy scope, but exorbitantly expensive to do on a per-round basis).
MarcoSkoll wrote: Then he would be knocked back 60 cm, as per s = (v * t) + (0.5 * a * t^2). He needs to stop it a lot faster than that.
It's generally better to think of recoil energy rather than recoil momentum. Energy is Force times Distance, rather than Force times Time, so this gives a better idea of how hard and far the recoil pushes you.
For the figures you picked (and ignoring the question of propellant gases - we'll assume the muzzle brake exactly breaks even on that), we'd be looking at a recoil energy of 720 joules, which is more than the muzzle energy of many pistols. It's in the ball park of getting hit by a .357 magnum, and although that doesn't obviously doesn't mean that the bolter will punch through a Space Marine's shoulder (the energy is obviously applied differently with the different velocities and areas of impact), it's still going to be fairly brutal on even their shoulders and not going to be trivially held on target.
The recoil of the .22 rifle you mention, for comparison, is going to be in the vicinity of about 0.2 to 0.5 joules, dependent on the exact bullet and rifle weight. Space marines are strong, but not two thousand times stronger than a normal human for the recoil to be that trivial.
With the 600m/s, 50 gram bolt that I used for most of the calcuations and the same 10 kilo bolter, recoil would be a rather more palatable 45 joules, generally on the upper end of "12 gauge shotgun". (Which, if you watch videos of people trying to fire a Saiga-12 on full auto* gives you a sense of how effective most humans trying to fire a bolter on full auto would be).
Erm, I'm no physics expert, but my math seems to indicate a 50 gram bolt traveling at 1,200 m/s would have 36,000 Joules of kinetic energy ((1/2)*(.05)*(1,200)^2=36,000) I may be dense, but I don't see how exactly this translate to 720 joules of "recoil energy"? Talking about recoil in terms of energy seems a bit wrong when factors like "impact area", weight of the weapon, and recoil time factor heavily into "felt recoil". It seems to me to be better to discuss recoil as a force instead. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you are wrong, simply that from the perspective of a layman it just seems better that way.
Okay, redo my math on the recoil of the bolter. Using your example of a 50 gram bolt (my previous example was 100 grams as that felt more fair) moving at 1,200 m/s. The space marine would stop the recoil of his boltgun in .025 seconds, which is 4 times faster then my original time. Using the distance formula you provided and that I now remember from my physics class awhile ago and assuming constant deceleration ((6*0.025)+(0.5*-240*(0.025)^2)= 0.075 which is .75 centimeters and is roughly one quarter of an inch, which I assume to be acceptable to you in terms of stopping distance?
This translates to exerting a force of 2,400 N for .025 seconds which is pretty heavy recoil I admit, using my previous example it would be like getting slammed in the shoulder by a heavyweight boxer repeatedly and definitely be unsustainable for an unaugmented human. However, due to the nature of space marine armor and their genetically enhanced strength, I don't see a marine having a problem firing this kind of weapon indefinitely.
MarcoSkoll wrote: I'm not seeing a meaningful difference. The mean velocity over a given distance is directly defined by the time it takes to cover that distance.
(And the time taken to cover the distance is what I covered in my "sooner" figures. "Faster" is the point that the slow-burn bolt starts having a higher velocity - always after the fast-burn bolt has burnt out - and therefore starting to catch up, "sooner" is the point it actually takes the lead).
Yes, at massive distances, you'd see slow-burn bolts having an advantage, but even the least favourable figures we're looking at above show fast-burn bolts to have the edge out to 2 kilometres, which is huge from the sense of actual combat distances. There's a couple of handfuls of people who've been shot at more than two kilometres, because generally people don't pick fights over salt flats with no buildings to break up the lines of sight.
I wasn't talking about mean velocity over a distance I was talking about maximum velocity reached during flight.
I was simply pointing out that as long as both rocket engines have equal thrust, then a longer thrust (assuming negligible fuel weight and equal energy density) would produce a higher maximum velocity (also assuming maximum attainable velocity had not been reached yet).
A "fast burn" bolt dumping its 100 NS of thrust in 1 second has to have bigger engines then a "slow burn" bolt dumping its 100 NS of thrust in 10 seconds.
w1zard wrote: Erm, I'm no physics expert, but my math seems to indicate a 50 gram bolt traveling at 1,200 m/s would have 36,000 Joules of kinetic energy ((1/2)*(.05)*(1,200)^2=36,000)
The 720 joules relates to a 10 kg bolter recoiling at 12 m/s.
Talking about recoil in terms of energy seems a bit wrong when factors like "impact area", weight of the weapon, and recoil time factor heavily into "felt recoil". It seems to me to be better to discuss recoil as a force instead.
The reason we don't use force is that resisting recoil is not a consistent even force - people are more like a spring, starting soft and getting harder the more you push back.
As such, energy is generally a better metric than trying to guess how much force is being applied to resist the recoil.
I've had to consider the logistics of firing half-pound projectiles from ten pound launchers (and let me tell you, a 1:20 ratio is a horrific mass ratio for recoil) where there simply wasn't the space/weight that could be spared for recoil control mechanisms, and the first thing I went to was a calculation of the recoil energy to work out whether it could be fired without a dislocated shoulder.
(The answer was yes, if you fully braced for it, but even when you did it right, the experience of firing it could only be adequately described by using a surplus of profanity. Suffice to say, that particular project had to go through a serious re-think).
Although yes, many other factors do come into play when considering felt recoil, such as the balance of the weapon, the bore axis relative to the stock*, the design of the stock, recoil control mechanisms, and the like, if you're boiling down recoil to one single figure, the kinetic energy of that recoil gives the best sense of the matter.
* Surprisingly though, on this front, even the notorious launcher above was surprisingly good at keeping the muzzle on target during recoil, because the design put the butt-stock and centre of gravity on the axis of the barrel, meaning the forces transferred directly back into the user's shoulder without any torque, so basically no muzzle rise.
I wasn't talking about mean velocity over a distance I was talking about maximum velocity reached during flight.
The fast-burn bolts hit the higher maximum velocities. The thing is that drag forces rapidly increase the faster you go, so eventually you hit an equilibrium where the bolt isn't accelerating. Higher thrust means a higher equilibrium speed.
EDIT: Pulling exact figures from my 600m/s calculations, slow-burn bolts hit an equilibrium at 1074.6 m/s. Even the 20% efficient fast-burn bolts hit 1527.6 m/s before they burn out.
MarcoSkoll wrote: The 720 joules relates to a 10 kg bolter recoiling at 12 m/s.
Sorry, I'm an idiot, I didn't connect the dots.
MarcoSkoll wrote: The reason we don't use force is that resisting recoil is not a consistent even force - people are more like a spring, starting soft and getting harder the more you push back.
As such, energy is generally a better metric than trying to guess how much force is being applied to resist the recoil.
Fair enough, that is a really good explanation actually.
MarcoSkoll wrote: The fast-burn bolts hit the higher maximum velocities. The thing is that drag forces rapidly increase the faster you go, so eventually you hit an equilibrium where the bolt isn't accelerating. Higher thrust means a higher equilibrium speed.
Which means you are making the assumption that the fast burn bolt has enough fuel to reach equilibrium speed, and also assuming that the fast burn bolt has larger engines than the slow burn one. I was doing this on the assumption that both bolts had the same thrust.
See my quote:
w1zard wrote: I was simply pointing out that as long as both rocket engines have equal thrust, then a longer thrust (assuming negligible fuel weight and equal energy density) would produce a higher maximum velocity (also assuming maximum attainable velocity had not been reached yet).
A "fast burn" bolt dumping its 100 NS of thrust in 1 second has to have bigger engines then a "slow burn" bolt dumping its 100 NS of thrust in 10 seconds.
Bolter would have mild recoil. It’s the equivalent of shooting a 12 gauge shotgun slug but even less recoil. Same sized projectile discharged at relatively the same velocity except the bolt gun is automatic so has some kind of recoil spring or system built in and the bolter itself is a heavy duty weapon which further absorbs the recoil.
A regular human with proper shooting technique could handle firing a bolter no problem. Weapons of war are made to be easily handled in adverse conditions. If it’s such a struggle to aim and fire a weapon they wouldn’t bother using the damn thing.
warpedpig wrote: Bolter would have mild recoil. It’s the equivalent of shooting a 12 gauge shotgun slug but even less recoil. Same sized projectile discharged at relatively the same velocity except the bolt gun is automatic so has some kind of recoil spring or system built in and the bolter itself is a heavy duty weapon which further absorbs the recoil.
A regular human with proper shooting technique could handle firing a bolter no problem. Weapons of war are made to be easily handled in adverse conditions. If it’s such a struggle to aim and fire a weapon they wouldn’t bother using the damn thing.
I believe I saw somewhere it could break your arm if you're only a normal human. Could. And I just believe
In all due likelyhood Space marines aren't concerned with that, they are physically too powerful to not be able to master the recoil, after all they wield the strength of 10 humans and the armour further enhances it.
w1zard wrote: Which means you are making the assumption that the fast burn bolt has enough fuel to reach equilibrium speed
No. The calculations all "assume" the bolt has the total impulse stated, over the duration stated. In a lot of the calculations I've done, the bolts have not reached their equilibrium speed.
also assuming that the fast burn bolt has larger engines than the slow burn one. I was doing this on the assumption that both bolts had the same thrust.
... how else did you imagine that two different engines would deliver the same total impulse over different durations other than by having different thrust levels? (Note, however, that "different thrust" does NOT automatically mean "larger engines". Rocket thrust is complicated). I've even specifically articulated the point that the fast-burn bolt is "assumed" to have more thrust:
MarcoSkoll wrote: Okay, what about only 20% as efficient, only 200 Ns of thrust, leaving it with only twice the thrust of the slow-burn bolt, compared to just a tenth of the burn time?
If we're making accusations of assumptions, what you're now doing is assuming that your slow-burn rocket automatically represents the absolute peak possible force that can be generated by any propellant that the Imperium has available, and this thus misses the entire point.
If you just pile on enough fuel reserves that your bolt can trivially generate maximum possible thrust for longer than it takes to get to even extreme engagement range, then it defeats the whole point of the argument, and represents a very wastefully designed bolt.
My point is that you want the rocket to generate the absolute peak thrust you can generate, even though this will be at the cost of the total burn time. With any fuel that's even broadly thinkable, even generously multiplying our current understanding of chemistry, then the idea of creating massive thrust for multiple seconds with the quantity of fuel contained within a tiny bolt is just not feasible.
If we stop with the idea that the fuel is an insignificant mass (which it actually physically cannot be - rocket engines are reaction engines, and work by expelling mass. The less we assume that mass is, the more ludicrous the exhaust velocity has to become*), then including enough fuel to get to such insane distances will unnecessarily increase recoil (as the fuel has to be fired, meaning more mass in that equation), reduce the acceleration of the bolt (actually reducing the impact of the bolt at likely engagement ranges) and simply be wasteful. Firing enough fuel to keep the bolt accelerating to 10 kilometres when almost everything you're firing at is within one kilometre, means more cost, and heavier, bulkier ammunition.
* Supposing, for a moment that our insignificant mass of fuel is 1 gram of the 50 gram bolt, generating 1000 Ns of thrust over 10 seconds from that amount of fuel would require an exhaust velocity of 1,000,000 m/s. Literally a million metres per second. That's utterly unthinkable with any chemical propellant - you're getting into energy densities that could only be achieved through mass-conversion (even ion engines don't get close to this) and I can't remember anyone mentioning bolter shells creating gamma ray bursts when fired...
(To be clear, the fact that your bolts are generating less total thrust does not make their exhaust velocities more plausible. The fast-burn bolts would have exactly the same exhaust velocities, because they'd generate the extra thrust by chucking their fuel mass out of the back ten times faster).
Even if we increase that to a significant 10 grams of the projectile, the figures you're proposing are still a good twenty times more energy dense than any existent chemical propellant, so the idea of maintaining these kinds of thrust impulses is basically out of the question in reality, so we're already getting into serious hypotheticals here. Keeping the same thrust, but slashing durations (and thus total impulse) to a tenth of these values would be way more plausible, but even then still stretching things.
warpedpig wrote: Bolter would have mild recoil. It’s the equivalent of shooting a 12 gauge shotgun slug but even less recoil. Same sized projectile discharged at relatively the same velocity except the bolt gun is automatic so has some kind of recoil spring or system built in and the bolter itself is a heavy duty weapon which further absorbs the recoil.
A regular human with proper shooting technique could handle firing a bolter no problem. Weapons of war are made to be easily handled in adverse conditions. If it’s such a struggle to aim and fire a weapon they wouldn’t bother using the damn thing.
I believe I saw somewhere it could break your arm if you're only a normal human. Could. And I just believe
In all due likelyhood Space marines aren't concerned with that, they are physically too powerful to not be able to master the recoil, after all they wield the strength of 10 humans and the armour further enhances it.
SoB has downscaled bolters because the recoil is too powerful.
warpedpig wrote: Bolter would have mild recoil. It’s the equivalent of shooting a 12 gauge shotgun slug but even less recoil. Same sized projectile discharged at relatively the same velocity except the bolt gun is automatic so has some kind of recoil spring or system built in and the bolter itself is a heavy duty weapon which further absorbs the recoil.
A regular human with proper shooting technique could handle firing a bolter no problem. Weapons of war are made to be easily handled in adverse conditions. If it’s such a struggle to aim and fire a weapon they wouldn’t bother using the damn thing.
I believe I saw somewhere it could break your arm if you're only a normal human. Could. And I just believe
In all due likelyhood Space marines aren't concerned with that, they are physically too powerful to not be able to master the recoil, after all they wield the strength of 10 humans and the armour further enhances it.
SoB has downscaled bolters because the recoil is too powerful.
The Departmento Munitorum can - or could - supply limited amounts of Boltguns to regular humans, as seen by Guard and Storm Trooper officers having access to them in their armouries (not sure if still true in new/current Codex/lore). What was the story there? I headcanon'd that they were "simplified", "stripped down", and lower caliber (like .50) than Marine versions in order for it to make a little more sense (obviously TT profiles keep things way more simplified).
w1zard wrote: Which means you are making the assumption that the fast burn bolt has enough fuel to reach equilibrium speed
No. The calculations all "assume" the bolt has the total impulse stated, over the duration stated. In a lot of the calculations I've done, the bolts have not reached their equilibrium speed.
In which case the fast burn bolt that reaches maximum velocity (and a higher maximum velocity due to thrust differential) the fastest will only be overtaken by the slow burn bolt when the fast burn bolt runs out of fuel. I was never debating that.
MarcoSkoll wrote: ... how else did you imagine that two different engines would deliver the same total impulse over different durations other than by having different thrust levels? (Note, however, that "different thrust" does NOT automatically mean "larger engines". Rocket thrust is complicated). I've even specifically articulated the point that the fast-burn bolt is "assumed" to have more thrust.
Then you have moved the goalposts of the arguing my original statement.
Look, this has been a very interesting and very enlightening conversation, but I originally said:
w1zard wrote: If you truly had experience building firearms, you would know that the longer the impulse, the higher velocities and greater kinetic energy.
I was assuming constant force across both projectiles, which means the bolt with the longer impulse time gets more total impulse. I was never really arguing anything else, and am not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Give two bolts the same rocket engine. Give one bolt twice the fuel. Assume fuel weight is negligible. Assume the bolt with less fuel does not reach equilibrium speed before it runs out of fuel. Assume that we are out on salt flats or something so nothing gets on the way. My assertion: The bolt with twice the fuel will have a higher maximum velocity during it's flight time then the other. Unless I am understanding things very wrong, I think that is a correct statement.
I also apologize for being condescending at first. You obviously know what you are talking about. But, you wouldn't believe how many times I've heard "I work on guns for a living" or "I've been in the military" online...
w1zard wrote: Then you have moved the goalposts of the arguing my original statement.
Look, this has been a very interesting and very enlightening conversation, but I originally said:
you would know that the longer the impulse, the higher velocities and greater kinetic energy.
... if the force of the impulse is the same, in which case you have a larger impulse and a completely inaccurate comparison. The bolt only has very limited volume for rocket fuel, and so a limited total impulse.
I set out exactly where I was putting the goalposts very early in the conversation, by contending that the fixed variable between fast and slow-burning fuels was not thrust but instead total impulse, and you never made any objection to that until very recently.
The entire point of my argument has always been on the principle that if you have two similarly chemically advanced rocket fuels (i.e. with similar exhaust velocities), then the one that burns/ejects its mass faster will create a greater reaction force, not an equal one.
As such, your entire argument relies on two bolts containing different masses of fuel, making for an entirely pointless comparison.
Yes, if two objects accelerate at the same rate but one accelerates for longer, then the idea that it's eventually going to go faster is a statement which would be commonly misattributed to Captain Obvious, but I believe it's actually in my book of quotations as first spoken by Sir Lord Grand Field Marshal Duke Obvious the Forty-Second of the Illustrious Obvious Dynasty of Planet Obvious in the Obvious sector.
I do not appreciate having my time wasted (and then being accused of disingenuously moving the goalposts) because you didn't read what I said right at the very start. If you'd objected right back then, then this could have been boiled down to "Well yes, if you're insisting on making that assumption, but I deeply disagree with that assumption".
MarcoSkoll wrote: I do not appreciate having my time wasted... because you didn't read what I said right at the very start.
I'm really not trying to be rude here buddy, but right back at you.
I'm not sure how you got from me simply stating "a longer impulse with the same force leads to a higher velocity" into a discussing larger, faster burning rocket engines on bolts vs smaller slower burning ones. Nor have I ever at any point claimed you were wrong... if you look back through our conversation I was simply trying to clarify your rather confusing assumptions the entire time.
You take a simple statement by me (delivered rudely, and I have apologized for that) and somehow turn it into a pagelong discussion of something completely unrelated to what I was originally talking about, and then blame me for wasting your time afterwards when I was trying to clarify what we were talking about the entire time.
Yes "a longer impulse with the same force leads to a higher velocity" is a rather dumb, captain obvious statement, which is why I was so confused about why you seemed to be trying to debate that.
MarcoSkoll wrote: I set out exactly where I was putting the goalposts very early in the conversation, by contending that the fixed variable between fast and slow-burning fuels was not thrust but instead total impulse, and you never made any objection to that until very recently.
No, I objected to it very early on in our conversation.
MarcoSkoll wrote: The bolt only has very limited volume for rocket fuel, and so a limited total impulse.
Why are you assuming that?...
You will have to forgive me for not picking up immediately that you were implying the fast burning bolts had more thrust. It is obvious in retrospect, but at the time I didn't connect the dots. I am not an engineer or physicist. I am not used to making those kinds of connections and you never explicitly stated it, unless I missed something.
EDIT: If I wanted to get really snarky, I could point out that saying a bolt having a higher maximum velocity than another whose engine is "smaller" when they both have the same mass is just as "captain obvious" territory as my claim was.
Marines use bolters because when one shell hits a target, it not only takes it out, but the five nearby men surrounding it when it explodes. That's why there's like only 5 shells in a bolter magazine.
The lasgun just burns the target, but can shoot all day.
Stormonu wrote: Marines use bolters because when one shell hits a target, it not only takes it out, but the five nearby men surrounding it when it explodes. That's why there's like only 5 shells in a bolter magazine.
The lasgun just burns the target, but can shoot all day.
Some (very) old lore:
Boltgun carries 15 rounds, + 1 in chamber.
Lasgun carries 1 power pack, with charges for 50 standard shots.
I think they changed some of this but I haven't been keeping up.
Stormonu wrote: Marines use bolters because when one shell hits a target, it not only takes it out, but the five nearby men surrounding it when it explodes. That's why there's like only 5 shells in a bolter magazine.
The lasgun just burns the target, but can shoot all day.
Some (very) old lore:
Boltgun carries 15 rounds, + 1 in chamber.
Lasgun carries 1 power pack, with charges for 50 standard shots.
I think they changed some of this but I haven't been keeping up.
In Space Marines (you know that blatantly over bloody treasure don't you?) they had 30 rounds if I recall correctly
Stormonu wrote: Boltgun carries 15 rounds, + 1 in chamber.
Lasgun carries 1 power pack, with charges for 50 standard shots.
I think they changed some of this but I haven't been keeping up.
In Space Marines (you know that blatantly over bloody treasure don't you?) they had 30 rounds if I recall correctly
It heavily depends on writer and situation, some mags has 15 some has 30 depending on situation.
Like in Vietnam they at some point had 15 mags since it allowed them to easier lay on the jungle floor and maneuver, where a 30 mag would get stuck all the time.
In urban combat they had 30 mags.
That’s just incorrect. Original M16 mags held 20 rounds and were under loaded by a few rounds to avoid jams, the capacity being based off the M14 it was replacing. The 30 round mags for the M16 were developed later as troops wanted to match the capacity of the enemy’s AKs. Nowt to do with crawling about the place.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As above - lasguns are logistically far more robust and require less maintainance that bolters do. Guardsmen require as little logistical strain as possible, so lasguns work best. Although, as said above, giving Space Marines a las weapon of some kind to hook up to their backpack power generator would be a good move - a hotshot laspistol, perhaps.
See, it's exactly backwards. IG is more 'static' army, they have better access to supply train. For them, ammo resupply shouldn't be a big problem. Space Marines, though, are constantly on the move, designed to operate for days if not weeks cut off from friendly positions. From that perspective, they sure as hell should be as independent from the supply lines as possible. Why they don't replace bolters with hellguns and volley guns, and heavy bolters with multilasers to have gear that won't run out of ammo after a few minutes, especially against orks or tyranids, I have no idea. They already have lascannons, going to light, reliable weapons with no moving parts and little maintenance needs looks like such a no-brainer it's really ridiculous even HH minis (that give SM dozens of bizarre, impractical weapons) didn't introduce SM las weaponry yet...
Although that sorta happened now that I think about it - HH blackshields can take las weapons because finally one of the writers stopped to think for a second and realized people with zero logistical train do need something that will work despite that. Pity the las weapons they can take are really garbage ones though, even HH militia has better options
w1zard wrote: Because a bolter is more devastating than a lasgun.
A bolter fires a .75 caliber (19.05mm) armor piercing rocket that explodes inside of you with the force of a modern day 40mm grenade. Compare that to a lasgun which has the stopping power of a modern day ballistic assault rifle, even if it is more accurate.
A lasgun is more accurate than a bolter but a bolter is basically a fully automatic armor-piercing RPG gun.
Except it's wrong. Lasgun is vastly stronger gun than modern assault rifles. They are described as cutting off limbs and explosively vaporizing liters of fluid in hit target, when standard NATO bullet would just make small hole in the hit location allowing enemy combatant to fight on. Lasgun has a pretty good chance of killing an ork, something that would just be tickled by 5.56 mm.
And while bolter is stronger than lasgun, sure, hellgun/hotshot have about same stopping power with much better armour penetration, while tempestus volley gun, something about the same size as bolter, just laughs at it being vastly better in every possible category, firepower, rate of fire, penetration - it's really dumb no SM looked at them and asked 'hey, why we can't try these?'
JohnnyHell wrote: That’s just incorrect. Original M16 mags held 20 rounds and were under loaded by a few rounds to avoid jams, the capacity being based off the M14 it was replacing. The 30 round mags for the M16 were developed later as troops wanted to match the capacity of the enemy’s AKs. Nowt to do with crawling about the place.
Maybe I remember wrong it may be 20 as you say, but I doubt you have actually fired a M16 in military situations, like being on your belly, then you can't aim properly with a 30 mag, since it will be too high and you can't lean up that high, so a shorter mag is way better.
They're also designed for different things. Modern munitions are designed to wound and cripple, not kill. Because a wounded soldier costs a modern adversary more, tactically speaking, than a killed soldier. Not so much in 40k - nobody cares that Bob can be saved. So a wound is no more valuable than a kill.
Bharring wrote: They're also designed for different things. Modern munitions are designed to wound and cripple, not kill. Because a wounded soldier costs a modern adversary more, tactically speaking, than a killed soldier. Not so much in 40k - nobody cares that Bob can be saved. So a wound is no more valuable than a kill.
That's an urban legend. Think for a second, what hospitals say ISIS or Talib fighters have? What use is wounding one when he is still a threat to your soldiers and you don't want for them to end up in coffins? If it was possible to develop ammunition that reliably kills instead of wounding, you can be sure USA would have deployed it in the middle east long ago. Alas, it's just structural issue with small caliber guns having garbage stopping power. No amount of tinkering will make tiny bullet that easily loses energy in the air and does little damage much more lethal, unless you start tinkering with forbidden kinds of ammunition.
Maybe I remember wrong it may be 20 as you say, but I doubt you have actually fired a M16 in military situations, like being on your belly, then you can't aim properly with a 30 mag, since it will be too high and you can't lean up that high, so a shorter mag is way better.
Seeing it's perfectly possible to do with 30 mag in AK, unless M16 has way worse design, I don't see how it would be an issue with it either:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As above - lasguns are logistically far more robust and require less maintainance that bolters do. Guardsmen require as little logistical strain as possible, so lasguns work best. Although, as said above, giving Space Marines a las weapon of some kind to hook up to their backpack power generator would be a good move - a hotshot laspistol, perhaps.
See, it's exactly backwards. IG is more 'static' army, they have better access to supply train. For them, ammo resupply shouldn't be a big problem. Space Marines, though, are constantly on the move, designed to operate for days if not weeks cut off from friendly positions. From that perspective, they sure as hell should be as independent from the supply lines as possible.
No, I think you're missing the point.
Guardsmen are ALREADY logistically strained. The sheer effort of food, water, equipment, and actually MOVING the men is gargantuan. Adding in having to supply and train them to use these temperamental, expensive, and heavy weapons is unnecessary strain on the system. The lasgun is designed because it can be cheap, robust, and needs less effort to supply than a bolter (which would vastly overtax the supply system). Conversely, Space Marines don't often (but there are exceptions) operate for long period of time, but when they do, they carry all equipment on them, which they can afford to do because they have the durability to protect those items. Guardsmen cannot - a Guardsman only carries a token handful of things into battle, and very few reloads (typically). A Space Marine doesn't need to worry about how many magazines he has, because he can carry far more.
Space Marines aren't always independent from supply lines. They CAN operate for longer, but they don't, unless gak has REALLY hit the fan, or it has been planned for, and as such will carry more equipment. A lot of the time, they will operate in short, sharp strike - not an extended one.
Why they don't replace bolters with hellguns and volley guns, and heavy bolters with multilasers to have gear that won't run out of ammo after a few minutes, especially against orks or tyranids, I have no idea. They already have lascannons, going to light, reliable weapons with no moving parts and little maintenance needs looks like such a no-brainer it's really ridiculous even HH minis (that give SM dozens of bizarre, impractical weapons) didn't introduce SM las weaponry yet...
Bolters won't run out of ammo after a few minutes because of bolters' AoE damage dealing with multiple targets, carrying lots of ammo on them, and also the fact that Astartes don't really operate away from supply all that often.
w1zard wrote: Because a bolter is more devastating than a lasgun.
A bolter fires a .75 caliber (19.05mm) armor piercing rocket that explodes inside of you with the force of a modern day 40mm grenade. Compare that to a lasgun which has the stopping power of a modern day ballistic assault rifle, even if it is more accurate.
A lasgun is more accurate than a bolter but a bolter is basically a fully automatic armor-piercing RPG gun.
Except it's wrong. Lasgun is vastly stronger gun than modern assault rifles. They are described as cutting off limbs and explosively vaporizing liters of fluid in hit target, when standard NATO bullet would just make small hole in the hit location allowing enemy combatant to fight on. Lasgun has a pretty good chance of killing an ork, something that would just be tickled by 5.56 mm.
Lasguns seriously don't have a "good" chance. Lasguns can be good, and certainly better than any modern weapon against a human. But against Orks, their lasguns just aren't strong enough. I'd say you need three guardsmen shooting at an Ork boy to bring it down before it can cover ten metres running.
A bolter could bring one down in one, maybe two shots, because bolters have just that much MORE sheer strength, stopping power, armour penetration (against regular lasguns)
And while bolter is stronger than lasgun, sure, hellgun/hotshot have about same stopping power with much better armour penetration, while tempestus volley gun, something about the same size as bolter, just laughs at it being vastly better in every possible category, firepower, rate of fire, penetration - it's really dumb no SM looked at them and asked 'hey, why we can't try these?'
Maybe because the game mechanics aren't tied to the lore?
If bolters were as strong in game as in lore, then they'd be near fatal against anything not in power armour, and even power armoured units would struggle.
In Know No Fear, the disparity between Astartes grade weapons and human ones is shown. Against all the cultists and militia, the Ultramarines don't use their bolters, and let the Calth soldiers around them shoot them, but when Word Bearers show up, the Ultramarines open fire, because their bolters are the most effective thing against their power armour.
Even hotshot weapons, I don't think have the same sheer stopping power. They're more like your typical Star Wars lasers maybe, blasting through stormtrooper armour and all that, but they don't have the stopping power of a bolter. As for "why not fully arm them with volley guns" - why not fully arm them with plasma guns, if that's the case?
JohnnyHell wrote: That’s just incorrect. Original M16 mags held 20 rounds and were under loaded by a few rounds to avoid jams, the capacity being based off the M14 it was replacing. The 30 round mags for the M16 were developed later as troops wanted to match the capacity of the enemy’s AKs. Nowt to do with crawling about the place.
Maybe I remember wrong it may be 20 as you say, but I doubt you have actually fired a M16 in military situations, like being on your belly, then you can't aim properly with a 30 mag, since it will be too high and you can't lean up that high, so a shorter mag is way better.
That's fething hogwash of the highest level, you gotta actually force yourself down to have the mag even hit the ground, some people prefer to use sandbangs or obstacles to stabilize their guns when they're prone, others prefer to have the mag rest of the ground.
Irbis wrote: Seeing it's perfectly possible to do with 30 mag in AK, unless M16 has way worse design, I don't see how it would be an issue with it either:
He's fireing at an elevated target, if it was a lower target he would have difficulties.
Bharring wrote: They're also designed for different things. Modern munitions are designed to wound and cripple, not kill. Because a wounded soldier costs a modern adversary more, tactically speaking, than a killed soldier. Not so much in 40k - nobody cares that Bob can be saved. So a wound is no more valuable than a kill.
That's an urban legend. Think for a second, what hospitals say ISIS or Talib fighters have? What use is wounding one when he is still a threat to your soldiers and you don't want for them to end up in coffins?
Your response to this assumption that I as well hold as true seems to say you forget that being wounded by a bullet IRL can get you crippled for life. You will not see very often an enemy rise to kill you after getting struck by a bullet: the pain as well as the sheer physical damages it produces makes it hardly believable. It's nit a video game my fellow french in Mali are involved in, for instance...
What is true on the other hand is that in the 40k universe no one cares about you, should you be killed or wounded. And taking down an orks, who by no means is a human, requires way, way more than our current bullets.
Irbis wrote: Seeing it's perfectly possible to do with 30 mag in AK, unless M16 has way worse design, I don't see how it would be an issue with it either:
He's fireing at an elevated target, if it was a lower target he would have difficulties.
But... all he would have to do is bring his elbows in slightly, thus raising the stock/levelling the barrel? Or am I missing something?
Anfauglir wrote: But... all he would have to do is bring his elbows in slightly, thus raising the stock/levelling the barrel? Or am I missing something?
So you haven't seen combat in an actual jungle, then you would have known:
1) ground is never perfectly plane and lvl as in the picture.
2) there are loads of vines, tall plants, branches etc etc that magazin can get stuck on.
3) if you had seen combat you would know ever split sec counts, having a long 30 mag hanging out of the rifle, it will slow you down just a little in such environment.
4) crawling on the jungle floor and maneuvering with short mags makes things lots easier!
The ground is usually soft in jungles, your mag is going to dug in, makes it even more easy to lay down.
Edit: Didn't the Vietcong carry AK-47's with 30 rounds mags? Jungle warfare's kind their thing and they didn't seem to mind having the mag sticking out.
Bobthehero wrote: The ground is usually soft in jungles, your mag is going to dug in, makes it even more easy to lay down.
Edit: Didn't the Vietcong carry AK-47's with 30 rounds mags? Jungle warfare's kind their thing and they didn't seem to mind having the mag sticking out.
How will you maneuver with a mag stuck in the ground?
I don't know enough about the AK to speak about it, but only the short mag to the M16.
JohnnyHell wrote: That’s just incorrect. Original M16 mags held 20 rounds and were under loaded by a few rounds to avoid jams, the capacity being based off the M14 it was replacing. The 30 round mags for the M16 were developed later as troops wanted to match the capacity of the enemy’s AKs. Nowt to do with crawling about the place.
This is correct.
Irbis wrote: Except it's wrong. Lasgun is vastly stronger gun than modern assault rifles. They are described as cutting off limbs and explosively vaporizing liters of fluid in hit target, when standard NATO bullet would just make small hole in the hit location allowing enemy combatant to fight on. Lasgun has a pretty good chance of killing an ork, something that would just be tickled by 5.56 mm.
And while bolter is stronger than lasgun, sure, hellgun/hotshot have about same stopping power with much better armour penetration, while tempestus volley gun, something about the same size as bolter, just laughs at it being vastly better in every possible category, firepower, rate of fire, penetration - it's really dumb no SM looked at them and asked 'hey, why we can't try these?'
You are aware that modern day assault rifles and battle rifles are fully capable of taking off limbs as well right?
Every depiction of lasguns in the lore I have ever seen has them performing analogous to modern day ballistic assault rifles except for being far more accurate and with a higher ammo capacity. Unaugmented humans regularly survive single lasgun hits if it is not in a vital area.
You could make an argument that a lasgun has more stopping power than say, an AKM and you may be right because we don't have hard numbers for an imaginary weapon. But, it is not so much more stopping power that it is particularly noteworthy as evidenced by its depictions in the lore.
HexHammer wrote: How will you maneuver with a mag stuck in the ground?
I don't know enough about the AK to speak about it, but only the short mag to the M16.
I am not a veteran, but I do know that I'd much rather have 10 more bullets in my magazine during a firefight than have a slightly shorter magazine. 10 more bullets is going to make a lot more of a difference towards saving your life than not getting your magazine snagged on something occasionally.
Bobthehero wrote: The ground is usually soft in jungles, your mag is going to dug in, makes it even more easy to lay down.
Edit: Didn't the Vietcong carry AK-47's with 30 rounds mags? Jungle warfare's kind their thing and they didn't seem to mind having the mag sticking out.
How will you maneuver with a mag stuck in the ground?
I don't know enough about the AK to speak about it, but only the short mag to the M16.
Its not jammed in there, duh, it doesn't limit your maneuverability in any way.
HexHammer wrote: So you haven't seen combat in an actual jungle, then you would have known:
No - staying in context of the picture I quoted; am I right or am I wrong? You didn't counter the pic with; "but that's not jungle", you countered with; "but he's firing at an elevated target [because of the magazine]". Stay within context.
1) ground is never perfectly plane and lvl as in the picture.
2) there are loads of vines, tall plants, branches etc etc that magazin can get stuck on.
1) This is generally true of any/most actual battlefield/live combat situations. The pic is clearly someone at a range/training ground. 2) And? A solider in the heat of a firefight will focus on where the enemy/enemy fire is coming from and where he/his squad mates are in relation to that in order to return fire. They're not worrying about the minutea of where every vine, leaf, root and rock is, they will quickly adopt a firing position, and make any adjustments to avoid entanglements on the fly. This is assuming a general/common jungle engagement and not when the solider in question is waiting in prepared/ambush position. The barrel length was more of an issue for jungle mobility than magazine length, honestly.
3) if you had seen combat you would know ever split sec counts, having a long 30 mag hanging out of the rifle, it will slow you down just a little in such environment.
4) crawling on the jungle floor and maneuvering with short mags makes things lots easier!
3) Have you seen combat? Because it really doesn't seem like it. Do you know what actually counts in a firefight, more than any other factor by quite some magnitude? Fire superiority. I'm not a solider, I've never seen combat or been in it; yet I still have the common sense to tell you a bit about the subject - every soldier worth their boots would take those extra rounds over being "slowed down" by a slightly larger magazine. Every. Single. One. 4) Hmm. Again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about that well. If you're crawling around on the floor and/or maneuvering, you're not sighting your rifle in a static position in readiness to fire. Most likely you've got your rifle cradled across your chest in the crook of your arms, allowing unhindered movement. This would apply even more so in a jungle environment. I think you're overestimating just how "lots easier" a 20-round mag over a 30-round mag would actually benefit soliders in combat situations vs. the much greater, more critical aforementioned advantage of more rounds to fire between reloads, and therefore greater chances of fire supperiority over the enemy.
Bobthehero wrote: The ground is usually soft in jungles, your mag is going to dug in, makes it even more easy to lay down.
Edit: Didn't the Vietcong carry AK-47's with 30 rounds mags? Jungle warfare's kind their thing and they didn't seem to mind having the mag sticking out.
How will you maneuver with a mag stuck in the ground?
I don't know enough about the AK to speak about it, but only the short mag to the M16.
Its not jammed in there, duh, it doesn't limit your maneuverability in any way.
Let's have a discussion again when you have actual first hand experience, thanks!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anfauglir wrote: I'm not a solider, I've never seen combat or been in it; yet I still have the common sense to tell you a bit about the subject - every soldier worth their boots would take those extra rounds over being "slowed down" by a slightly larger magazine.
Sofa Professors with Dunning Kruger Effect at it's finest!
Bobthehero wrote: The ground is usually soft in jungles, your mag is going to dug in, makes it even more easy to lay down.
Edit: Didn't the Vietcong carry AK-47's with 30 rounds mags? Jungle warfare's kind their thing and they didn't seem to mind having the mag sticking out.
How will you maneuver with a mag stuck in the ground?
I don't know enough about the AK to speak about it, but only the short mag to the M16.
Its not jammed in there, duh, it doesn't limit your maneuverability in any way.
Let's have a discussion again when you have actual first hand experience, thanks!
Are you talking to yourself? Why did you quote me?
HexHammer wrote:Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
Because the needed something that would look fething cool on the box art to sell their game, so they gave the Marines massive AK-esque guns with smoking barrels and empty shell cases flying off in all directions. Then later they needed a weapon for the Guard and they went with something more akin to an M-16, but it needed to be futuristic so they made them laser guns.
Bharring wrote: Modern munitions are designed to wound and cripple, not kill. Because a wounded soldier costs a modern adversary more, tactically speaking, than a killed soldier. Not so much in 40k - nobody cares that Bob can be saved. So a wound is no more valuable than a kill.
That's a myth, one that I thought had died a long time ago. It's actually tied to a separate myth that the Germans made small mines that were designed just to wound soldiers etc. That came about because the S-mine ("Bouncing Betty" - no relation) wasn't hugely powerful and often inflicted non-fatal wounds. Modern munitions are designed to kill as best they can. It just so happens that shooting small pieces of lead at each other isn't a particularly effective way of doing that, but it's a lot better than trying to charge the enemy with swords.
HexHammer wrote:..sigh ...civilian professors!
With the greatest respect - maybe you do have military experience - but nothing in your responses so far would suggest that. There are plenty of armies that conduct jungle warfare training. None of them swap out there 30 round mags for 20 round mags specifically for this purpose, for the simple reason that a competent soldier can just raise the weapon up on his elbows. It's really not a big deal like you're making out.
With the greatest respect - maybe you do have military experience - but nothing in your responses so far would suggest that. There are plenty of armies that conduct jungle warfare training. None of them swap out there 30 round mags for 20 round mags specifically for this purpose, for the simple reason that a competent soldier can just raise the weapon up on his elbows. It's really not a big deal like you're making out.
And ofc I'm just a reservist in the Finnish army, but 30 round mags is all we have for our local AKM copy (which has vastly superior sights). The long mag is actually perfect as a point of balance when you hide and shoot stuff from a lying down position. Which we prefer above all else - killing the enemy with pinpoint precision from far away is much better than having a short-range melee with knives, grenades and pistols.
Space marines should of had a special 4 barrel lasgun so they can be rapid fire a total of 8 shots at 12" or 4 shots at 24" at the low strength of 3, no ap, 1 damage no ability.
The power armor has a nuclear reactor generator for power...or was that the terminator...or was that something else, anyways the power armor can carry a large power bank on the back to power the quad barrel lasgun.
CadianGateTroll wrote: Space marines should of had a special 4 barrel lasgun so they can be rapid fire a total of 8 shots at 12" or 4 shots at 24" at the low strength of 3, no ap, 1 damage no ability.
The power armor has a nuclear reactor generator for power...or was that the terminator...or was that something else, anyways the power armor can carry a large power bank on the back to power the quad barrel lasgun.
Now that is the weapon marines should of had.
But you expect a space marines to shot effectively to kill, not to spray and pray. That kind of weapons look like spray and spray.
As stated by somebody else, the space marines are propaganda figures: even if the lore justifies their uses of boltguns instead of basic flashlights, the simple rule of the mist badass would apply to them. GW considered (and many a player is fine with that I believe) that firing little rpg rockects is awesome. Who would want a space marine have to fire a dozen lasers to take down an ork? It's so much more over the top and 40k-ish to have such beasts torn apart by a single well aimed shell!
Disclaimer: not starting a fight or actually cpuntering you, just using as starting point.
As far as magazines... The Armée Française, when it came to consider the issue of cumbersome guns within transports and any environment, developped the Famas. The magazine varies from 25 to 30 rounds, so they definitly didn't try to reduce weight or needed spave by cutting the mag short. But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.
Oh, and it dealt with the prone postition probleme you mentionned when firing by adding pods to the weapons that you can deploy!
I always felt that boltguns were semi-automatic; Space Marines not seeding to fire on auto as they would tend to hit more than miss, so volume of fire was less important. And that slightly slower, deep, chug, chug noise of semi-auto fire would fill an enemy with much more dread. Much more fitting for shock/terror troops as their role is often implied to be. Supply being generally less of a problem as they aren't really expected to be carrying out protracted campaigns - get in, kill the big bad, bugger off and let the Guard mop up.
I also felt that the Imperial Guard should have stuck with more las weapons, and fewer if any solid projectile types, except for tanks; simply for the sake of easier logistics - as all las weapons use the same powerpacks (or at least they once did!).
Separately, having fired weapons with a 30 rnd magazine, doing so from prone is not particularly difficult even in awkward terrain - though the ones I've used were bullpups, so that may have made it easier (L85, L86). (Only in simulated combat, or on a range though)
I always imagined both bolters and lasguns to have semi and fully automatic fire modes. I also imagine 95% of the time Marines only need to fire on semi-automatic, due both to the lethality of the rounds and the high marksmanship of the shooter.
Lasguns are a bit different, to my mind, seeing as their "ammo" is a power-pack and not a set number of rounds. As well as semi and auto modes, I imagine there being output modes; "full" or "overcharge", "half" or "regular charge", and maybe even a "power-save" setting of a lower output to stretch the life of power packs/cells in times of emergency. The higher the output, the farther the shot can travel and the more penetration, but also the quicker the drain and fewer the shots per pack/cell. Similarly, the longer the trigger is held down while on fully automatic the more the shots get progressively weaker/slower as the pack/cell is drained.
Based on both RPGs and more detailled tabletop games like inquisitor, neither bolters nor lasguns have fully automatic, only semi-automatic.
That's the major advantage autoguns have over lasguns - full auto for suppressing fire - and according to siege of vraks, it's one reason why militia and PDF forces - who don't have to worry about interstellar logistics - often prefer solid shot weapons (the other being the lower tech base needed to build them and the ease of 'upgrading' them with specialist ammo - tracer, manstopper, dumdum, tox, etc - where needed).
In terms of translating rifle power to lasguns; the agrippina pattern autogun (the one most cultists carry) eats an 8mm rifle cartridge. Whilst you can't automatically assume equivalence of propellant power, that's a bullet not a million miles from an AK47's 7.62mm rifle round, rather than the 5.56 NATO standard.
pm713 wrote: I'm 90% sure Bolters can switch between semi and full auto.
Agreed, so must lasguns, also for the latter just as much as for the former, there ar emany "sub-models" of the weapons which might have dfferent characteristics.
locarno24 wrote: Based on both RPGs and more detailled tabletop games like inquisitor, neither bolters nor lasguns have fully automatic, only semi-automatic.
TT profiles written for game balance =/= the lore/fluff.
That's the major advantage autoguns have over lasguns - full auto for suppressing fire - and according to siege of vraks, it's one reason why militia and PDF forces - who don't have to worry about interstellar logistics - often prefer solid shot weapons (the other being the lower tech base needed to build them and the ease of 'upgrading' them with specialist ammo - tracer, manstopper, dumdum, tox, etc - where needed).
See above. You use TT game profiles for bolters/lasguns, yet change to fluff when describing autoguns. Tell me, how do the TT profiles of autoguns compare to those of bolter and las weapons? I'm curious.
locarno24 wrote: Based on both RPGs and more detailled tabletop games like inquisitor, neither bolters nor lasguns have fully automatic, only semi-automatic.
That's the major advantage autoguns have over lasguns - full auto for suppressing fire - and according to siege of vraks, it's one reason why militia and PDF forces - who don't have to worry about interstellar logistics - often prefer solid shot weapons (the other being the lower tech base needed to build them and the ease of 'upgrading' them with specialist ammo - tracer, manstopper, dumdum, tox, etc - where needed).
In terms of translating rifle power to lasguns; the agrippina pattern autogun (the one most cultists carry) eats an 8mm rifle cartridge. Whilst you can't automatically assume equivalence of propellant power, that's a bullet not a million miles from an AK47's 7.62mm rifle round, rather than the 5.56 NATO standard.
Many novels, including Gaunt's Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain describe both lasguns and bolters being fired on full-auto.
HexHammer wrote: Never understood the reverse weaponry of IG and SM.
IG got ballistic based tanks, artillery and (some) air, then a few las gun thingies, but infantry with las rifles and pistols?
SM on the other hand has tanks with las guns, but infantry with old fashion ballistic bullets?
ImoSM should have the las guns so they can do all the awesome precision things, shooting targets from very far distance with extreme accuracy, easily shooting aircrafts etc.
IG should have the inaccurate old fashioned bullet based guns, that runs out of ammo, produces smoke and makes lots of noise.
Ballistic based weaponry are sensitive to wind and weather, if the target moves suddenly when you fire, the projectile will miss. Besides the amount of ammo you have to carry around would be insane just for a few weeks engagement.
On the contrary with a las based weapon a SM could in theory have unlimited supply of ammo with his powerpack.
Bolts are far more devastating, they explode inside the body. In terms of realism and physics there is really nothing that could survive that, if the bolt penetrated the explosion would cause so much pressure it would kill anything biological, even apart from the actual explosion the trauma from the pressure build up alone would be catastrophic, apart from maybe biotitans but still if you swallowed a fire cracker, there isn't much chance you'd have a second meal. Kinda like the Armageddon explanation the NASA guy gives. Even vehicles like dreadnoughts and titans, if a a bolt ever was able to penetrate it would cause havoc, wires, pistons and electronics being destroyed. Kinda the equivalent of a few melta bombs in a battle ship reactor.
Anyone have any idea what the actual explosive force of a bolt is? It's a 75cal round, so how much explosive can you pack in there taking into account the armour piercing jacket and detonators etc?
Banville wrote: Anyone have any idea what the actual explosive force of a bolt is? It's a 75cal round, so how much explosive can you pack in there taking into account the armour piercing jacket and detonators etc?
Still the psi would be extreme as well as the shock wave and mach stem formation; which can increase the yield of the initial explosion, plus the extreme barotrauma effects etc. So if it doesn't blow you apart the initial explosion would be far greater.
75 cal round on its own would cause huge trauma. I’m not military but I am a paramedic and am very familiar with ballistic trauma. U talk about the pressure damage from an explosive round, before that you would have the cavitation caused by a high volocity round going through the soft tissue. Dependent upon the speed of the round it can be as much as thirty times the diameter of the round. With 75cal being rocket propelled the velocity is going to be high and the cavitation huge. It’d be lucky to have any tissue left to explode in hitting a human size target. Anyone who has seen someone hit by a 50cal gun will know the devastation that causes.
There are very few parts of a human sized body that can take that large a trauma not have vital bits damaged. And as for stopping power, as in stopping a target from moving, that kind of hole would stop a target in its tracks. Hard to run when your legs have come off.
I always think of the bolter as a terror weapon. If it hits normally armoured humans they would be obliterated, anyone near by be be left in a carnal scene of meat and bits all over the place. It would be horrific. If you were lucky enough to survive you would be mentally traumatised by the events. I know real world doesn’t apply much to 40k. But the bolter, even if they didn’t explode would be a horrific weapon.
Banville wrote: Anyone have any idea what the actual explosive force of a bolt is? It's a 75cal round, so how much explosive can you pack in there taking into account the armour piercing jacket and detonators etc?
I think that’d depend on the nature of the explosives. Consider where we’ve come in that department in the last couple of hundred years.
Andykp wrote: 75 cal round on its own would cause huge trauma. I’m not military but I am a paramedic and am very familiar with ballistic trauma. U talk about the pressure damage from an explosive round, before that you would have the cavitation caused by a high volocity round going through the soft tissue. Dependent upon the speed of the round it can be as much as thirty times the diameter of the round. With 75cal being rocket propelled the velocity is going to be high and the cavitation huge. It’d be lucky to have any tissue left to explode in hitting a human size target. Anyone who has seen someone hit by a 50cal gun will know the devastation that causes.
There are very few parts of a human sized body that can take that large a trauma not have vital bits damaged. And as for stopping power, as in stopping a target from moving, that kind of hole would stop a target in its tracks. Hard to run when your legs have come off.
I always think of the bolter as a terror weapon. If it hits normally armoured humans they would be obliterated, anyone near by be be left in a carnal scene of meat and bits all over the place. It would be horrific. If you were lucky enough to survive you would be mentally traumatised by the events. I know real world doesn’t apply much to 40k. But the bolter, even if they didn’t explode would be a horrific weapon.
On a human sized enemy sure, larger pray, that can survive the initial 50 cal penetration, then the pressure and the mach stem formation damage comes in.
They’re definitely terror weapons, but also designed to be highly efficient.
Aside from ‘my mate just exploded on me’, they’re not weapons to really inflict flesh wounds. Even a glancing hit is going to put you down, even if it doesn’t kill you.
Marines may be nuts hard, but they work so much better when every shot counts!
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.
Bullpups do not have a reduced (or greatly reduced if you prefer) barrel length, they have a full size rifle barrel, that is the entire point behind the bullpup design. Its purpose is to provide a full size rifle in the package of a carbine. The most common issue with a bullpup however is that their triggers are not usually as nice as a standard rifle, and their reload.
For example on length, FAMAS F1/G2 Length: 757mm (29.8 in) FAMAS F1/G2 Barrel Length: 488 mm (19.2 in)
M16 Series Length: 1,003mm (39.5 in) M16 Series Barrel Length: 508mm (20 in)
M4 Series Length: 840mm (33 in) Stock Fully Extended, 756mm (29.75mm) Stock retracted M4 Series Barrel Length: 370mm (14.5 in)
As you can see, the FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4 Carbine with its stock in, while offering a barrel length barely shorter than the M16 Rifle. Smaller package with the same range. It was replaced because it was getting long in the tooth and had some issues.
That said, and honeslty Im not sure why bullpups were brought up cause I only skimmed the thread. A bullpup Boltgun could have advantages for the Astartes, but Im not sure exactly how many. As a rocket assisted projectile (and not a Gyrojet, like people assume) the barrel and initial propellant would mostly just be there to stabilize the round and provide its initial punch (also assist with short range killing where the rocket motor might not have had a chance to fully engage.
Bull pup bolt guns would be a pain to model and paint up too! The extra punch of the explosive inside the 70 cal round is meant for bigger meaner targets. Marines are made to tackle all the bad guys in the galaxy.
I always try to imagine what the scene would look like when a intercessor squad blows up a squad of wyches or cultists! Even one shot killing each target the mess and collateral damage would be horrendous.
I’m sure if they really existed nearby people to a target would be injured to by shrapnel and bone fragments flying around when targets came apart. The effect of hard targets and infrastructure would much more depend on type of round I guess and it’s clear folk on here know much more than me about it but on topic the horrific nature of the bolter suits the marines better than a laser weapon. Nothing persuades a person to follow the imperial truth better than a 7’ super soldier blowing their family into pieces.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.
Bullpups do not have a reduced (or greatly reduced if you prefer) barrel length, they have a full size rifle barrel, that is the entire point behind the bullpup design. Its purpose is to provide a full size rifle in the package of a carbine. The most common issue with a bullpup however is that their triggers are not usually as nice as a standard rifle, and their reload.
For example on length,
FAMAS F1/G2 Length: 757mm (29.8 in)
FAMAS F1/G2 Barrel Length: 488 mm (19.2 in)
M16 Series Length: 1,003mm (39.5 in)
M16 Series Barrel Length: 508mm (20 in)
M4 Series Length: 840mm (33 in) Stock Fully Extended, 756mm (29.75mm) Stock retracted
M4 Series Barrel Length: 370mm (14.5 in)
As you can see, the FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4 Carbine with its stock in, while offering a barrel length barely shorter than the M16 Rifle. Smaller package with the same range. It was replaced because it was getting long in the tooth and had some issues.
That said, and honeslty Im not sure why bullpups were brought up cause I only skimmed the thread. A bullpup Boltgun could have advantages for the Astartes, but Im not sure exactly how many. As a rocket assisted projectile (and not a Gyrojet, like people assume) the barrel and initial propellant would mostly just be there to stabilize the round and provide its initial punch (also assist with short range killing where the rocket motor might not have had a chance to fully engage.
What I meant was simply that it was less lengthy on the outside. But thanks for bringing more elements to the thread, that's useful of course.
Actually the FAMAS's design is said to be the main reason why it's such a "sensitive" gun, demanding an incredible amount of maintenance. Which is basically why France'll be swapping for german HK 416, but it's sad to see that iconic, french gun about quit in our own army .
I don't know how would a bullpup boltgun perform but hell, that's be damn badass anycase!
Also aggred, with everyone who mentionned it, the space marines rely heavily on psychology. They want to terrify the enemy to cripple him, and the inhumanly devastating effects of a bolt (not even mentionning HEAVY bolt) are a very, very, sapping view to the moral...
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote: But the Famas on the other hand, deals with it by being bullpup designed, that's to say, reduced barrel, as someone stated.
Bullpups do not have a reduced (or greatly reduced if you prefer) barrel length, they have a full size rifle barrel, that is the entire point behind the bullpup design. Its purpose is to provide a full size rifle in the package of a carbine. The most common issue with a bullpup however is that their triggers are not usually as nice as a standard rifle, and their reload.
For example on length,
FAMAS F1/G2 Length: 757mm (29.8 in)
FAMAS F1/G2 Barrel Length: 488 mm (19.2 in)
M16 Series Length: 1,003mm (39.5 in)
M16 Series Barrel Length: 508mm (20 in)
M4 Series Length: 840mm (33 in) Stock Fully Extended, 756mm (29.75mm) Stock retracted
M4 Series Barrel Length: 370mm (14.5 in)
As you can see, the FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4 Carbine with its stock in, while offering a barrel length barely shorter than the M16 Rifle. Smaller package with the same range. It was replaced because it was getting long in the tooth and had some issues.
That said, and honeslty Im not sure why bullpups were brought up cause I only skimmed the thread. A bullpup Boltgun could have advantages for the Astartes, but Im not sure exactly how many. As a rocket assisted projectile (and not a Gyrojet, like people assume) the barrel and initial propellant would mostly just be there to stabilize the round and provide its initial punch, also assist with short range killing where the rocket motor might not have had a chance to fully engage.
What I meant was simply that it was less lengthy on the outside. But thanks for bringing more elements to the thread, that's useful of course.
Actually the FAMAS's design is said to be the main reason why it's such a "sensitive" gun, demanding an incredible amount of maintenance. Which is basically why France'll be swapping for german HK 416, but it's sad to see that iconic, french gun about quit in our own army .
I don't know how would a bullpup boltgun perform but hell, that's be damn badass anycase!
Also aggred, with everyone who mentionned it, the space marines rely heavily on psychology. They want to terrify the enemy to cripple him, and the inhumanly devastating effects of a bolt (not even mentionning HEAVY bolt) are a very, very, sapping view to the moral...
Also forgot that the FAMAS other issue is that its operating system, Lever Delayed Blow Back, has issues with ammo pressures. It has to be fairly specific, which can be problematic if the French needed to get ammo from US soldiers in a combat zone. It is sad to lose an Icon like that, but the 416 is a good platform.
So far there is one Bullpup Boltgun, the one Azrael caries, and I would like to see more just based off that one. Even if it technically wouldn't function as there is no way for the round to actually get to the chamber.
I do agree with you and everyone on the effect on morale, the damage caused by the round and the report, combined with the Astartes hard hitting strikes would shatter morale of many of their more common opponents. Its why the chainsword is also a thing, and why it and the boltgun are the iconic weapons of the Astartes, they'd terrify most things.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.
Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me. I’d never noticed how daft azraels gun is. Can’t unsee that now!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.
Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me. I’d never noticed how daft azraels gun is. Can’t unsee that now!
Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.
No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.
No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.
To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt. The same round fired from the same gun will have the same power, regardless or whether its fire at 1 RPM or 300RPM.
Hotshots are not a different weapon, they are an up-powered Lasgun with external power source. To break it down, a single lasgun power pack holds 50 standard shots, but could also theoretically hold 1-5 stronger shots. The energy consumption of the pack is the same, but the shot is different in strength and volume. You can fire many weaker shots or fewer stronger shots. This of course assumes a variably setting on a Lasgun which is not always going to be the case but could be possible on certain models.
A boltgun with a 30 round mag is always going to have 30 rounds and each shot is going to have the exact same power as the other 29.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.
No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.
To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt. The same round fired from the same gun will have the same power, regardless or whether its fire at 1 RPM or 300RPM.
Hotshots are not a different weapon, they are an up-powered Lasgun with external power source. To break it down, a single lasgun power pack holds 50 standard shots, but could also theoretically hold 1-5 stronger shots. The energy consumption of the pack is the same, but the shot is different in strength and volume. You can fire many weaker shots or fewer stronger shots. This of course assumes a variably setting on a Lasgun which is not always going to be the case but could be possible on certain models.
A boltgun with a 30 round mag is always going to have 30 rounds and each shot is going to have the exact same power as the other 29.
Not true, a normal round will have more energy absorbed on impact than an armour piercing round. It has the same initial projectile force, but they do not have the same power on impact. Hotshots 'are' a different weapon. A lascannon is technically just an up-powered lasgun. Lasguns cannot theoretically shoot stronger shots, otherwise they would act that way. A hotshot is an 'advanced' lasgun they need coolant systems and reinforced barrels etc. They are a completely different weapon.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.
No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.
To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt. The same round fired from the same gun will have the same power, regardless or whether its fire at 1 RPM or 300RPM.
Hotshots are not a different weapon, they are an up-powered Lasgun with external power source. To break it down, a single lasgun power pack holds 50 standard shots, but could also theoretically hold 1-5 stronger shots. The energy consumption of the pack is the same, but the shot is different in strength and volume. You can fire many weaker shots or fewer stronger shots. This of course assumes a variably setting on a Lasgun which is not always going to be the case but could be possible on certain models.
A boltgun with a 30 round mag is always going to have 30 rounds and each shot is going to have the exact same power as the other 29.
Not true, a normal round will have more energy absorbed on impact than an armour piercing round. It has the same initial projectile force, but they do not have the same power on impact. Hotshots 'are' a different weapon. A lascannon is technically just an up-powered lasgun. Lasguns cannot theoretically shoot stronger shots, otherwise they would act that way. A hotshot is an 'advanced' lasgun they need coolant systems and reinforced barrels etc. They are a completely different weapon.
The normal vs AP round is true but you misunderstand me. Any given round from a given magazine will have the same power and stopping power as any other round within the same magazine fired by the same gun. Ignoring neglible differences in wind and gravity etc, 2 identical rounds fired from the same gun will deliver almost identical results.
A las-weapon is just upscaled versions of each other, yes. A hotshot has advanced systems to avoid the barrel disintegrating when fired - but there's nothing to say that a normal Lasgun can't fire at that same power, assuming you are okay with melting the gun or otherwise ruining it.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Plus lasguns are theoretically pretty gak weapons. Easy and cheap to make as they don't have moving parts and probably less precision needed to make them. A laser weapon that small has to kill instead of wound, wounding its terrible as it cauterizes the wound. Heat absorption in armour is also far easier than ballistics, hafnium carbide can resist 4000 degrees C. Even ceramic which is cheap as chips. People think lasers are good because they are futuristic, but lasers can we extremely weak or infinitely strong, it just depends on how much energy you are putting into the laser. Stronger they are the bigger the weapons are.
+1. If the basic soldiers didn't fire it necesseraly in the dozens, they would be actually nothing more than a flashlight. Unless they would carry las cannons like the ones mounted on leman russes, they SM would instantly lose some hitting power.
I never took a close look at Azrael's gun and... hum, yep it simply can't fire. They shoud have made the bottom full, not half size to look like a grip. That's silly!
I'm think the FAMAS ran NATO standard cartridges, I'd have to look for details though.
Yeah but the bolter is rapid fire as well, so in comparing the two that isn't a good selling point.
It very much is. As said, a laser's damage comes directly from the amount of energy put into each beam. Firing a dozen shots quickly vs 1 powerful shot, ie, hotshot lasguns. The Bolter and the Lasgun might have the same rate of fire, but the strength of the laser per shot is much lower when fired faster, or the strength is the same and it simply runs out of ammo much quicker. On the other hand, a bolter will always have the same hitting power and ammo count regardless of rate of fire.
No, boilters have lots of different rounds so so they don't have the same hitting power. Lasguns cannot change the strength of their laser, hotshots are a different weapon all together. Lasguns have one mode of strength.
To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt. The same round fired from the same gun will have the same power, regardless or whether its fire at 1 RPM or 300RPM.
Hotshots are not a different weapon, they are an up-powered Lasgun with external power source. To break it down, a single lasgun power pack holds 50 standard shots, but could also theoretically hold 1-5 stronger shots. The energy consumption of the pack is the same, but the shot is different in strength and volume. You can fire many weaker shots or fewer stronger shots. This of course assumes a variably setting on a Lasgun which is not always going to be the case but could be possible on certain models.
A boltgun with a 30 round mag is always going to have 30 rounds and each shot is going to have the exact same power as the other 29.
Not true, a normal round will have more energy absorbed on impact than an armour piercing round. It has the same initial projectile force, but they do not have the same power on impact. Hotshots 'are' a different weapon. A lascannon is technically just an up-powered lasgun. Lasguns cannot theoretically shoot stronger shots, otherwise they would act that way. A hotshot is an 'advanced' lasgun they need coolant systems and reinforced barrels etc. They are a completely different weapon.
The normal vs AP round is true but you misunderstand me. Any given round from a given magazine will have the same power and stopping power as any other round within the same magazine fired by the same gun. Ignoring neglible differences in wind and gravity etc, 2 identical rounds fired from the same gun will deliver almost identical results.
A las-weapon is just upscaled versions of each other, yes. A hotshot has advanced systems to avoid the barrel disintegrating when fired - but there's nothing to say that a normal Lasgun can't fire at that same power, assuming you are okay with melting the gun or otherwise ruining it.
I didn't miss-understand at all. "To clarify - an indvidual bolter, regardless of exact caliber, will always have the same power, whether that is a 60-cal explosive, or 75cal Kraken Bolt."
" there's nothing to say that a normal Lasgun can't fire at that same power, assuming you are okay with melting the gun or otherwise ruining it." this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Every lasgun has the same Strength on the tabletop, true. But there's quite a bit of fluff and Black Library fiction where some lasgun models are described as having different power or ROF selectors or guardsmen overloading a lasgun for more power when desperate. It doesn't make it a Hellgun, it's not Munitorium approved and the Comissar will be unhappy with you - but there's lore even if you can't use it in the TT game.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Every lasgun has the same Strength on the tabletop, true. But there's quite a bit of fluff and Black Library fiction where some lasgun models are described as having different power or ROF selectors or guardsmen overloading a lasgun for more power when desperate. It doesn't make it a Hellgun, it's not Munitorium approved and the Comissar will be unhappy with you - but there's lore even if you can't use it in the TT game.
I’ve not heard of those adjustments on a lasgun anywhere but did read about a meltagun operator adjusting his weapon illegally to allow it to heat food and drinks. In stormsword I think. Bit silly.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Every lasgun has the same Strength on the tabletop, true. But there's quite a bit of fluff and Black Library fiction where some lasgun models are described as having different power or ROF selectors or guardsmen overloading a lasgun for more power when desperate. It doesn't make it a Hellgun, it's not Munitorium approved and the Comissar will be unhappy with you - but there's lore even if you can't use it in the TT game.
Can you quote those instances?
Can’t find exact pages but read the Gaunts ghosts series. The sniper (Larkin I believe) mentions wasting entire power packs as a single hot-shot round, and that doing so drastically decreases the lifespan of his barrel. They also mention upping the power level when fighting aliens who are resistant to las weaponry, though they rely on solid shot projectiles to take them down more often.
The Mercian iron guard I believe are stated to have a fire mode with decreased firepower, more akin to giving a person a second degree burn that blowing off chunks of flesh. They use it for riot suppression. They also have an overcharge mode that drastically reduces shots but puts them near the level of a hot-shot.
Can’t recall the source but there’s a regiment that has an overcharge setting because the big beasts on their home world don’t give them many opprotunities to shoot it beforehand it kills them, so they have to make every shot count.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Every lasgun has the same Strength on the tabletop, true. But there's quite a bit of fluff and Black Library fiction where some lasgun models are described as having different power or ROF selectors or guardsmen overloading a lasgun for more power when desperate. It doesn't make it a Hellgun, it's not Munitorium approved and the Comissar will be unhappy with you - but there's lore even if you can't use it in the TT game.
Can you quote those instances?
Can’t find exact pages but read the Gaunts ghosts series. The sniper (Larkin I believe) mentions wasting entire power packs as a single hot-shot round, and that doing so drastically decreases the lifespan of his barrel. They also mention upping the power level when fighting aliens who are resistant to las weaponry, though they rely on solid shot projectiles to take them down more often.
The Mercian iron guard I believe are stated to have a fire mode with decreased firepower, more akin to giving a person a second degree burn that blowing off chunks of flesh. They use it for riot suppression. They also have an overcharge mode that drastically reduces shots but puts them near the level of a hot-shot.
Can’t recall the source but there’s a regiment that has an overcharge setting because the big beasts on their home world don’t give them many opprotunities to shoot it beforehand it kills them, so they have to make every shot count.
In most of the 40kRPG's (Inquisitor and the various FFG ones) the Triplex Pattern tends to have the variable power. The standard lasgun (m36 pattern) also has variable power in the Only War RPG. The necromunda pattern is often descriped as been capable of full auto.
In 2nd Edition a hotshot lasgun was identical to a bolter.
In Gaunts Ghosts the long las's (whatever the plural is) have stronger barrels and they carry multiple spares.
Tygre wrote: In most of the 40kRPG's (Inquisitor and the various FFG ones) the Triplex Pattern tends to have the variable power. The standard lasgun (m36 pattern) also has variable power in the Only War RPG. The necromunda pattern is often descriped as been capable of full auto.
In 2nd Edition a hotshot lasgun was identical to a bolter.
In Gaunts Ghosts the long las's (whatever the plural is) have stronger barrels and they carry multiple spares.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Every lasgun has the same Strength on the tabletop, true. But there's quite a bit of fluff and Black Library fiction where some lasgun models are described as having different power or ROF selectors or guardsmen overloading a lasgun for more power when desperate. It doesn't make it a Hellgun, it's not Munitorium approved and the Comissar will be unhappy with you - but there's lore even if you can't use it in the TT game.
Can you quote those instances?
Can’t find exact pages but read the Gaunts ghosts series. The sniper (Larkin I believe) mentions wasting entire power packs as a single hot-shot round, and that doing so drastically decreases the lifespan of his barrel. They also mention upping the power level when fighting aliens who are resistant to las weaponry, though they rely on solid shot projectiles to take them down more often.
The Mercian iron guard I believe are stated to have a fire mode with decreased firepower, more akin to giving a person a second degree burn that blowing off chunks of flesh. They use it for riot suppression. They also have an overcharge mode that drastically reduces shots but puts them near the level of a hot-shot.
Can’t recall the source but there’s a regiment that has an overcharge setting because the big beasts on their home world don’t give them many opprotunities to shoot it beforehand it kills them, so they have to make every shot count.
What novel, I'll see if I can find it.
Its the The Foudning, the first omnibus, but specifically I think its in Ghostmaker or Necropolis.
I can't remember which Gaunt's Ghosts novel it was, but I remember it was one of the earlier ones and they were going up against a Chaos Space Marine so they all turned their lascarbines up to max power.
Dan Abnett had an unusual take on lasguns though. His had recoil and also ricocheted similar to solid projectiles. They were also the first novels I remember lasguns being described as being capable of full-auto, whereas previously when I read about them they were semi-auto only. I will admit though that it's highly likely that there had been descriptions of full-auto lasguns that I just didn't notice. Games Workshop and Black Library have never been very consistent.
I think the image and blurb about the Mars Pattern lasgun that used to be all over the place (including the 3rd Ed rulebook IIRC) had a power selector depicted and a weird bit about it being semi-auto but experienced shooters being able to keep up a good rate of fire. I wasn't sure if that meant it had a short cool-down or something.
Only War gives the standard lasgun 3 power levels, the last one actually does 1 more point of damage than the hellgun, but it still can't match its penetration. There's also the Triplex that has different firing modes that are all suited at killing a a different foe.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: this is just a cop-out. They are not the same weapon, and seeing that lasguns can't shoot stronger shots proves it can't. If it could it would be reflected in the lore, which it isn't.
Every lasgun has the same Strength on the tabletop, true. But there's quite a bit of fluff and Black Library fiction where some lasgun models are described as having different power or ROF selectors or guardsmen overloading a lasgun for more power when desperate. It doesn't make it a Hellgun, it's not Munitorium approved and the Comissar will be unhappy with you - but there's lore even if you can't use it in the TT game.
Can you quote those instances?
Can’t find exact pages but read the Gaunts ghosts series. The sniper (Larkin I believe) mentions wasting entire power packs as a single hot-shot round, and that doing so drastically decreases the lifespan of his barrel. They also mention upping the power level when fighting aliens who are resistant to las weaponry, though they rely on solid shot projectiles to take them down more often.
The Mercian iron guard I believe are stated to have a fire mode with decreased firepower, more akin to giving a person a second degree burn that blowing off chunks of flesh. They use it for riot suppression. They also have an overcharge mode that drastically reduces shots but puts them near the level of a hot-shot.
Can’t recall the source but there’s a regiment that has an overcharge setting because the big beasts on their home world don’t give them many opprotunities to shoot it beforehand it kills them, so they have to make every shot count.
What novel, I'll see if I can find it.
Its the The Foudning, the first omnibus, but specifically I think its in Ghostmaker or Necropolis.
It’s in the second omnibus as well, the one about them being on a planet under WWII style siege by chaos, it’s noted several times because he runs low. The bit about the alien is in that one too, unsure which book but they fought with the panthine troopers
Wyzilla wrote: We already know how fast bolts are, the novels mention them to be supersonic/hypersonic.
Given the general consistency of the novels and the general firearms illiteracy of many BL authors, that's not very usable. (I reread Eisenhorn a while back because someone asked questions about his weapons, and the amount Abnett mangles the terminology is painful).
It's also a very vague description, and my ability to calculate these things would get much more ropey once into a truly hypersonic band, as there's relatively little study of ballistics at those velocities - even very fast APFSDS rounds fired by tanks (which have the advantage of very long barrels to accelerate their projectiles much faster than normal rifles) aren't even properly into the region.
Anyway, I'll admit that I picked relatively low values for my calculations, but if I pick higher values, it actually skews more in favour of a rapid burn.
If I pick 600 m/s as a muzzle velocity, and give the bolts 40 Ns of rocket propellant, then Bolt A is faster out to ~463 metres, and ahead out to 889 metres, and that's really getting a pretty long way for weapons where some of the design purpose must have been a weapon usable at close quarters. Even if we calculate all the way out to 2 kilometres, Bolt B coasting rather than sprinting the distance still only makes it a fairly mild 13 m/s faster at 2000 metres.
Hypersonic weapons would be exceptionally lethal and useful in close range, what are you talking about? Once you reach velocities of that speed, firing rounds at point blank range is going to tear most targets apart from the impact force alone, nevermind the explosive qualities. And we also have direct bolt speeds from Death of Castellax that puts them well within the hypersonic range (Iron Warrior puts a bolt in a man from 2.5 kilometers and kills him before he reaches the ground after jumping off the bed of a truck).
I can't actually recall having seen any art that assumes those proportions. Generally, bolt rounds I've seen in the art are proportioned more like a mix between pistol and shotgun rounds.
We see it all the time in stormbolters, combi bolters, and also games such as deathwing.
Spoiler:
Likewise (and how I got the measurements), when we apply Jes Goodwin's marine height chart to his same images of marines holding boltguns, such as this
We get roughly 19x165mm
And if we go by this
We get 19x126mm
So it's pretty obvious that by just looking at bolters themselves, GW's images of bolts are complete and must be lacking the kicker component to even fit in the gun. Likewise there wouldn't even be bolt casings big enough to justify the ejection port on boltguns unless the brass containing the kicker was fairly significant.
** And in response to any cry of "But plasteel/ceramite/etc armour is stronger": At these velocities, it doesn't matter - when things go this fast, normal mechanical forces break down, and absolutely every material is like wet clay. Case in point: Aluminium wouldn't normally act like this under normal mechanical interaction, but it does versus anything at this kind of speed. As does copper, steel, tungsten, titanium, iridium, ceramic, concrete, wood, wet sand, whatever.
Your assumptions are completely wrong here. 40k materials in some cases literally break physics over their knee as there is no way to even comprehend the attributes of things like adamantium due to them being wholly incompatible with our universe. Adamantium is a naturally occurring element that can be mined from rocks. That alone means the periodic table of the 40k universe is completely different from ours and assuming their metals have similar qualities to ours is absurd. Thus we're left with the conundrum that either Adamatnium has some obscene atomic number that should render it unstable and incapable of surviving naturally like Nobellium or Californium while yet being a metal and not having an ungodly density that would render it unusable as an armoring material.
Same goes with melee weapons- 40k metals can be honed to monomolecular edges and yet do not instantly blunt. That's not something you can do in reality, as any monomolecular edge will be instantly lost upon making contact with practically any solid surface. Yet chainswords and powered chainswords can literally rip and cut through armor (despite the blades being so wide that cutting is literally impossible). And that's not addressing more absurd things such as using statements on the strength of wraithbone/plasteel which results in a hilariously absurd conclusion. (Wraithbone is stated to be 1,000 times stronger than steel, and in another article 8mm wraithbone is mentioned to be equal to ~30mm of plasteel.)
And that's not addressing more absurd things such as using statements on the strength of wraithbone/plasteel which results in a hilariously absurd conclusion. (Wraithbone is stated to be 1,000 times stronger than steel, and in another article 8mm wraithbone is mentioned to be equal to ~30mm of plasteel.)
which is only contridictory if you assume Plasteel literally means plastic as hard as steel, not simply a term that has come about to describe a partiuclar type of super hard synathetic material, one that may be considerably stronger then steel.
Your assumptions are completely wrong here. 40k materials in some cases literally break physics over their knee as there is no way to even comprehend the attributes of things like adamantium due to them being wholly incompatible with our universe. Adamantium is a naturally occurring element that can be mined from rocks. That alone means the periodic table of the 40k universe is completely different from ours and assuming their metals have similar qualities to ours is absurd. Thus we're left with the conundrum that either Adamatnium has some obscene atomic number that should render it unstable and incapable of surviving naturally like Nobellium or Californium while yet being a metal and not having an ungodly density that would render it unusable as an armoring material.
Adamantium is strongly hinted to be Titanium. Titanium ore can theoretically be mined on asteroids and planets, and would be light enough to make an effective armor without breaking chemistry as we know it or invalidating the periodic table. "But adamantium is stronger than titanium", true... But, that doesn't rule out a forging/treating method, or an alloy that we just have not discovered yet which makes the resultant material much stronger than modern day Titanium alloy.
Your assumptions are completely wrong here. 40k materials in some cases literally break physics over their knee as there is no way to even comprehend the attributes of things like adamantium due to them being wholly incompatible with our universe. Adamantium is a naturally occurring element that can be mined from rocks. That alone means the periodic table of the 40k universe is completely different from ours and assuming their metals have similar qualities to ours is absurd. Thus we're left with the conundrum that either Adamatnium has some obscene atomic number that should render it unstable and incapable of surviving naturally like Nobellium or Californium while yet being a metal and not having an ungodly density that would render it unusable as an armoring material.
Adamantium is strongly hinted to be Titanium. Titanium ore can theoretically be mined on asteroids and planets, and would be light enough to make an effective armor without breaking chemistry as we know it or invalidating the periodic table. "But adamantium is stronger than titanium", true... But, that doesn't rule out a forging/treating method, or an alloy that we just have not discovered yet which makes the resultant material much stronger than modern day Titanium alloy.
No it isn't. Adamantium is hinted no-where to be titanium, nevermind that titanium, especially in the case of armor, is weaker than steel. Post that information now, because I want a citation on something as outrageous as adamantium, a mined metal so durable it can survive the detonation of the plasma generators of ships, is a titanium alloy.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.
Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me. I’d never noticed how daft azraels gun is. Can’t unsee that now!
It's less daft-looking on the miniature because that part is hidden between his torso and elbow. Still, even in that drawing, it looks like there's a path from the magazine to behind the muzzle, even if it is rather convoluted and probably prone to jamming.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.
Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me.
Underslungs made more sense pre-8th Edition when the special WAS an actual auxiliary weapon with a single shot, and I liked how Combi-plasmas reminded me of underslung grenade launchers on the M4. But Combi Melta looks fine on the top for me personally. I also think that in the 8th Edition where combi weapons are not "auxiliary" but full blown weapon fusions that carry reloads and can fire all the time, essentially 2 guns in 1 casing, I think special on top is fine.
Wyzilla wrote: No it isn't. Adamantium is hinted no-where to be titanium, nevermind that titanium, especially in the case of armor, is weaker than steel. Post that information now, because I want a citation on something as outrageous as adamantium, a mined metal so durable it can survive the detonation of the plasma generators of ships, is a titanium alloy.
Secondly, I don't have a source on adamantium being titanium because there is none. It was just something I always assumed reading the novels because it is the only possible material to be as strong as we assume it is, and be as light as the books claim. A couple authors give subtle nods to the idea that adamantium is titanium without outright stating it. For reference, we know the atomic numbers of every material up until ridiculously dense elements that have problems existing because they are so dense... adamantium has to be one of them. Unless you're making the argument that 40k somehow operates in an alternate reality where basic elements like oxygen don't exist.
We know that adamantium is not an alloy, it is an element because it appears naturally. So, it has to be on the periodic table. Therefore, it is an element we already know, just renamed. Titanium is the only one that makes sense.
It is not beyond belief that humans 40k years in the future have found a Titanium alloy or a forging/treating technique for a specific titanium alloy that makes it many times stronger than titanium alloys today.
Wyzilla wrote: No it isn't. Adamantium is hinted no-where to be titanium, nevermind that titanium, especially in the case of armor, is weaker than steel. Post that information now, because I want a citation on something as outrageous as adamantium, a mined metal so durable it can survive the detonation of the plasma generators of ships, is a titanium alloy.
Secondly, I don't have a source on adamantium being titanium because there is none. It was just something I always assumed reading the novels because it is the only possible material to be as strong as we assume it is, and be as light as the books claim. A couple authors give subtle nods to the idea that adamantium is titanium without outright stating it. For reference, we know the atomic numbers of every material up until ridiculously dense elements that have problems existing because they are so dense... adamantium has to be one of them. Unless you're making the argument that 40k somehow operates in an alternate reality where basic elements like oxygen don't exist.
We know that adamantium is not an alloy, it is an element because it appears naturally. So, it has to be on the periodic table. Therefore, it is an element we already know, just renamed. Titanium is the only one that makes sense.
It is not beyond belief that humans 40k years in the future have found a Titanium alloy or a forging/treating technique for a specific titanium alloy that makes it many times stronger than titanium alloys today.
I’m not sire the periodic table was in their thoughts when they made up adamantium. They needed and super tough super duarable space metal to make their space armour out of for their space warriors. Nothing to do with where it comes or it’s atomic number.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd like to see more underslung combi weapons in general, the top special bottom bolter ones always seemed silly to me.
Yeah when they are special weapon on top makes it look like a plasma gun with a auxiallary bolter added. It seems like lazy model making to me. I’d never noticed how daft azraels gun is. Can’t unsee that now!
It's less daft-looking on the miniature because that part is hidden between his torso and elbow. Still, even in that drawing, it looks like there's a path from the magazine to behind the muzzle, even if it is rather convoluted and probably prone to jamming.
It could have been if the rounds had been smaller, but according to their size, I doubt they actually could make their way to be fired if any fire mechanism has been installed within the gun (which is necesseraly the case). If so then I agree that it must be very, very, prone to jamming...
That design is silly whatsoever!
As far as adamantium being titanium in disguise, I don't know the physics, but from GW it is possible. Actually there is the instance of prometeium that does exist, but that is nowhere near to oil, in reality it is something totally different. The could very well rename or misuse an existing element, but in all due likelyhood we can assume that they did find a way to forge hard nuts such as titanium, after all, 40k is none first and moremost for how silly it is. The main topic (the bolter) is a prime example.
Andykp wrote: I’m not sire the periodic table was in their thoughts when they made up adamantium. They needed and super tough super duarable space metal to make their space armour out of for their space warriors. Nothing to do with where it comes or it’s atomic number.
And I think one on them liked Adam ant.
Making up things on the periodic table is impossible, there's no way to have fractions of a proton in the nucleus of the atom, and we have accounted for all other elements.
Andykp wrote: I’m not sire the periodic table was in their thoughts when they made up adamantium. They needed and super tough super duarable space metal to make their space armour out of for their space warriors. Nothing to do with where it comes or it’s atomic number.
And I think one on them liked Adam ant.
Making up things on the periodic table is impossible, there's no way to have fractions of a proton in the nucleus of the atom, and we have accounted for all other elements.
We have accounted for all other elements thus far - at one point there was many fewer elements on the table. Its entirely possible for a super dense stable non-radioactive metal, simply not theorised because it obeys an as of yet unknown law of physics. Remember, at one point the elements also contained Water, Fire and Air.
After all, in 40k we also have races that grow a bone like material organically with psychic powers that is stronger but lighter than steel, and living metal able to contain aeons-old godlike energy beings. Dont forget that this is a universe set so far beyond every other sci-fi universe. The realms of Star Trek and HALO and Destiny are long long dead and dust by the time the Old Night hits in the 40k universe. Look how far science and technology has come in the last 500 years... then multiply that advancement by 800 again. Its impossible to even imagine how advanced the Imperium might be compared to us, and they are on the bottom of a steep decline. Their understanding of technology during the Dark Age of Technology must make 21st century science look like monkeys eating fleas off each other. A Dark Age techpriest would look at a 21st gun maker arguing about the ballistics of a bolter as an Eldar might view a human trying to master the controls to a Wave Serpent
I highly disagree with titanium being adamantium for a number of reasons. Firstly, I have never heard of titanium being able to survive nuclear explosions and plasma reactors or anything of the sort. Its stronger and light but has its limits. At one point, a pure adamantium power armour suit (The Armour Indomitus) was able to provide a model with a 2+ armour save and 6+ invulnerable save, meaning it was as durable as having the best armour in the galaxy and a small force field to boot. And it could push itself to being 2++, meaning it was superior to having the best armour in the galaxy and a LARGE force field.
Secondly, weight - all depictions of adamantium give hint towards its weight. The Armour Indomitus above was descibed as very heavy. Terminator Armour is slowed down by it. A Land Raider is supremely heavy and requires a lot of it. Blast doors and Titan engines are made from it. Titanium on the other hand is known for being incredibly light for its strength compared to steel as well as being unreactive.
Third, adamantium is simply a bygone name for Unobtainium, which in itself is a catch-all term for "Fictionally supermetal far beyond anything we know today." The other prominent example of Adamantium in fiction is Marvel's Wolverine and others, and given that 40k was made by 2 nerds in the 80s and full of references, I'd bet the mortgage that they picked that one during to Marvel. Source inspiration aside, this means that adamantium is just a term to use instead of "Fictional Super Metal better than everything ever discovered." Therefore it could not be titanium or an alloy of it as its original intent. Any references or hints in novels is just because some writers, like some Dakka posters, prefer to ground themselves in real world ideas and imagine that 'plasteel' and 'adamantium' are simply things we all know today but renamed. Others prefer the "its a totally fictionally newly discovered/created material far beyond what the 21st century have."
Deadshot wrote: We have accounted for all other elements thus far - at one point there was many fewer elements on the table. Its entirely possible for a super dense stable non-radioactive metal, simply not theorised because it obeys an as of yet unknown law of physics. Remember, at one point the elements also contained Water, Fire and Air.
But then it would be so dense you couldn't build anything with it or it would collapse under its own weight. For reference, we are running into the fact that STEEL is too dense in our modern day constructions and iron is relatively low on the periodic table.
Deadshot wrote: Third, adamantium is simply a bygone name for Unobtainium, which in itself is a catch-all term for "Fictionally supermetal far beyond anything we know today." The other prominent example of Adamantium in fiction is Marvel's Wolverine and others, and given that 40k was made by 2 nerds in the 80s and full of references, I'd bet the mortgage that they picked that one during to Marvel. Source inspiration aside, this means that adamantium is just a term to use instead of "Fictional Super Metal better than everything ever discovered." Therefore it could not be titanium or an alloy of it as its original intent. Any references or hints in novels is just because some writers, like some Dakka posters, prefer to ground themselves in real world ideas and imagine that 'plasteel' and 'adamantium' are simply things we all know today but renamed. Others prefer the "its a totally fictionally newly discovered/created material far beyond what the 21st century have."
Except it is not. If adamantium were described as an alloy I would have no problem with the handwaving, but it is specifically described as a naturally occurring element, which means it MUST be on the periodic table and it has to make sense, unless you are throwing away physics and chemistry as we know it in the 40k universe. Suspension of disbelief is a thing. I am fine with things like warp drives that use fethery to accomplish crazy things in areas of science we don't really understand yet. What I am not ok with are things contradicting known and easily observable laws of physics.
Deadshot wrote: We have accounted for all other elements thus far - at one point there was many fewer elements on the table. Its entirely possible for a super dense stable non-radioactive metal, simply not theorised because it obeys an as of yet unknown law of physics. Remember, at one point the elements also contained Water, Fire and Air.
But then it would be so dense you couldn't build anything with it or it would collapse under its own weight. For reference, we are running into the fact that STEEL is too dense in our modern day constructions and iron is relatively low on the periodic table.
'
Clearly 40k materials science is in excess of our own, could it be by the 41st Millinium the periodic table as we now understand it has simply been... disproven?
Andykp wrote: I’m not sire the periodic table was in their thoughts when they made up adamantium. They needed and super tough super duarable space metal to make their space armour out of for their space warriors. Nothing to do with where it comes or it’s atomic number.
And I think one on them liked Adam ant.
Making up things on the periodic table is impossible, there's no way to have fractions of a proton in the nucleus of the atom, and we have accounted for all other elements.
There is a fairly well-established and accepted theory that predicts an island of stability in the periodic table for elements with proton numbers above 120, with element 126 being a leading candidate according to the nuclear shell model. If such an element was stable long-term, it's entirely possible it could have properties like those described in the 40k background. It's unlikely to be naturally occurring, though if it's stable there is the possibility it could exist somewhere and with the galaxy being a big place there's no reason it couldn't have been created somewhere out there and therefore be able to be mined.
w1zard wrote: it is specifically described as a naturally occurring element, which means it MUST be on the periodic table and it has to make sense, .
Show me Carbon 14 on the periodic table... you can't because it isn't there. Adamantium could be a 'trade name' (or similar colloquial name) for a stable isotope of a material that is already there, but is as yet undiscovered (or simply doesn't exist on earth). So it can be both, a naturally occurring material, and not on the periodic table.
It could also be beyond the table, atomic weight of 119+.
Slipspace wrote: There is a fairly well-established and accepted theory that predicts an island of stability in the periodic table for elements with proton numbers above 120, with element 126 being a leading candidate according to the nuclear shell model. If such an element was stable long-term, it's entirely possible it could have properties like those described in the 40k background. It's unlikely to be naturally occurring, though if it's stable there is the possibility it could exist somewhere and with the galaxy being a big place there's no reason it couldn't have been created somewhere out there and therefore be able to be mined.
*cough* But then it would be so dense you couldn't build anything with it or it would collapse under its own weight. For reference, we are running into the fact that STEEL is too dense in our modern day constructions and iron is relatively low on the periodic table.
Kcalehc wrote: It could also be beyond the table, atomic weight of 119+.
*cough* But then it would be so dense you couldn't build anything with it or it would collapse under its own weight. For reference, we are running into the fact that STEEL is too dense in our modern day constructions and iron is relatively low on the periodic table.
Kcalehc wrote: Show me Carbon 14 on the periodic table... you can't because it isn't there. Adamantium could be a 'trade name' (or similar colloquial name) for a stable isotope of a material that is already there, but is as yet undiscovered (or simply doesn't exist on earth). So it can be both, a naturally occurring material, and not on the periodic table.
An isotope of carbon is still carbon. If this is seriously your argument you need to retake basic chemistry.
Adamantium's made up. GW says it's naturally occurring. Therefore, it is.
Our modern understanding of the periodic table (which is still just a theory, as is all science) is not the same as the one GW invented for a whole new set of physics for 40k.
Slipspace wrote: There is a fairly well-established and accepted theory that predicts an island of stability in the periodic table for elements with proton numbers above 120, with element 126 being a leading candidate according to the nuclear shell model. If such an element was stable long-term, it's entirely possible it could have properties like those described in the 40k background. It's unlikely to be naturally occurring, though if it's stable there is the possibility it could exist somewhere and with the galaxy being a big place there's no reason it couldn't have been created somewhere out there and therefore be able to be mined.
*cough* But then it would be so dense you couldn't build anything with it or it would collapse under its own weight. For reference, we are running into the fact that STEEL is too dense in our modern day constructions and iron is relatively low on the periodic table.
Density doesn't increase with atomic number. The properties of an as-yet undiscovered element are nearly impossible to determine, especially one that would exist in the theorised island of stability. Tungsten is one of the densest elements and we can build stuff out of that just fine. I imagine the construction techniques of the 41st millenium are more advanced than ours and supporting superdense materials is probably within their technological capabilities.
It depends on the atomic structure of the mass in question and a whole bunch of other factors including electron shell distances etc... Aluminum is less dense than steel despite having a higher atomic number.
However the general trend is that elements with greater atomic mass have greater densities. I'd be willing to bet a very precious body part that any element with an atomic number over 120 is going to be more dense than steel.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Our modern understanding of the periodic table (which is still just a theory, as is all science) is not the same as the one GW invented for a whole new set of physics for 40k.
40K is a fantasy setting. Not sci-fi. Fantasy. Wizards and demons and magic swords. Being set in 'the future' doesn't make it sci-fi. Jack Vance's Dying Earth isn't sci-fi. Neither is Moorcock's The History of the Runestaff.
Adamantium isn't in the periodic table. It's a fantasy substance. It's space magic.
Duskweaver wrote: 40K is a fantasy setting. Not sci-fi. Fantasy. Wizards and demons and magic swords. Being set in 'the future' doesn't make it sci-fi. Jack Vance's Dying Earth isn't sci-fi. Neither is Moorcock's The History of the Runestaff.
Adamantium isn't in the periodic table. It's a fantasy substance. It's space magic.
Like I said, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.
"I am fine with things like warp drives that use fethery to accomplish crazy things in areas of science we don't really understand yet. What I am not ok with are things contradicting known and easily observable laws of physics."
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Our modern understanding of the periodic table (which is still just a theory, as is all science) is not the same as the one GW invented for a whole new set of physics for 40k.
Dude, all science is theory. We're not omniscient. We don't know 100%. Sure, some theories are better than others, but they're still theories.
The plum pudding model was scientific fact at one time. Now we accept the Geiger-Mardsen experiment to be the thing that disproves it. However, what's to say that another experiment isn't done, and disproves our understanding of atoms?
It's arrogance to believe that we KNOW things as a scientific fact. This is why we continue experiments - to further our understanding, even if that proves existing "science" as incorrect. That's why all science, unless we are omniscient, is only a theory.
(Do I believe the periodic table is correct as we know it? I won't future proof it, but it's certainly the best model we have. So, in a close minded view, yes, it's correct. However, it's still a theory.)
w1zard wrote:Like I said, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.
Of all the things to break your suspension of disbelief, it's the fact that you can't understand that 40k has a different set of elements in their periodic table?
It's certainly not a difficult thing for me, but you do you, I guess.
"I am fine with things like warp drives that use fethery to accomplish crazy things in areas of science we don't really understand yet. What I am not ok with are things contradicting known and easily observable laws of physics."
You can't observe them. Not empirically. 40k exists in a setting entirely seen in the third person, at the whims of an omnipotent author who presides over every facet of it. Because it is fiction. Physics don't need to exist in fiction, and in 40k, they clearly don't operate by our standards.
Yes, they contradict our known laws of physics: you want to know why that's not a problem? Because it's fictional, and must realistically be set in a dimension that does not obey the laws of physics as we know it. There may be similarities, but they're not the same, and shouldn't be judged as the same, because it's fictional.
Also, I'd like to point out the line "we don't really understand yet" - what makes you think WE do, in the real world? We THINK we do, and we assign theories to it - until something comes along and breaks that. If history has told us anything, it's that scientific facts are often the least concrete facts we know.
Next you'll be complaining that mithril, or Elven weapons make no sense and ruin LOTR because they clearly can't fit on the periodic table, or something.
Yes, even in "fantasy".
Why do you pin real world physics on fantasy then, when you KNOW it's not real?
Duskweaver wrote: 40K is a fantasy setting. Not sci-fi. Fantasy. Wizards and demons and magic swords. Being set in 'the future' doesn't make it sci-fi. Jack Vance's Dying Earth isn't sci-fi. Neither is Moorcock's The History of the Runestaff.
Adamantium isn't in the periodic table. It's a fantasy substance. It's space magic.
Like I said, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.
"I am fine with things like warp drives that use fethery to accomplish crazy things in areas of science we don't really understand yet. What I am not ok with are things contradicting known and easily observable laws of physics."
Yes, even in "fantasy".
sure but that's because you keep insisting on applying modern science to 40k. Clark's third law here applies. You keep insisting on "ohh X can't exist because of SCIENCE!" without considering that maybe just MAYBE in the fictional setting of 40k at least, the scientific theory of our current times has been proven wrong. people have belived all sorts of theories, that we now look back on as being quaint and well.. wrong. No reason to assume that in 40k if you showed up and started talking about the periodic table of elements you'd be met with the same reaction we'd have for someone who talked about a Heliocentric universe
Except the parts that can be proven empirically as facts. Like the periodic table? I accept that there are things we don't KNOW yet. and some areas of science that are a bit wobbly and we merely have working theories for instead of provable laws (gravity). The periodic table is not one of those areas.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Of all the things to break your suspension of disbelief, it's the fact that you can't understand that 40k has a different set of elements in their periodic table?
Yes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Next you'll be complaining that mithril, or Elven weapons make no sense and ruin LOTR because they clearly can't fit on the periodic table, or something.
I always took Mithral to be Titanium as well for what it is worth.
BrianDavion wrote: sure but that's because you keep insisting on applying modern science to 40k. Clark's third law here applies. You keep insisting on "ohh X can't exist because of SCIENCE!" without considering that maybe just MAYBE in the fictional setting of 40k at least, the scientific theory of our current times has been proven wrong. people have belived all sorts of theories, that we now look back on as being quaint and well.. wrong. No reason to assume that in 40k if you showed up and started talking about the periodic table of elements you'd be met with the same reaction we'd have for someone who talked about a Heliocentric universe
Our entire scientific base being proven wrong is too much of a stretch for me. I realize that is a personal opinion but I am very much into suspension of disbelief.
Don't get me wrong, I like star wars, star trek, 40k, fantasy settings... the works. But what all of these settings have in common is that they make the effort to explain away most or all of the "reality breaking" things in some manner. I have no patience for settings that lazily hand-wave away issues like that with no explanation, or have an inconsistent portrayal of certain things. 40k has evolved and things have changed sure... but there has always been some sort of effort to explain stuff. Like the fact that adamantium was lighter than steel and many times stronger to explain why Titans could exist without collapsing in on themselves or sinking into the ground under their own weight due to the square cubed law. Or the fact that lasguns are created with superconducting materials that have very little resistance to explain away heat problems that IRL lasers are faced with... or any other myriad of things.
All they had to say way adamantium was an hitherto undiscovered alloy and I would have bought it without further explanation. But no they went the 'element' route which means it is Titanium or nothing. At least from my perspective.
Our current periodic table exists using only our current knowledge and access to currently known/obtainable materials. It's very likely that even IRL, in the 41st millenium (if we're still around, of course) the periodic table will look different to what it does now. Using new information and new materials (again, assuming we've actually improved/expanded our spacefaring abilities). Remember, "scientific fact" also used to tell us the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe, and all sorts of other weird and quirky "facts" that, nowadays, with access to more/better knowledge, seem extremely silly and unbelievable. That's just using IRL as a grounded comparison, without even going into the fact that 40K is a highly and extremely fantasitc setting. Trying to enforce something as mundane as the IRL 2nd millenium periodic table, and furthermore having that, of all things, be the thing responsible for maintaining suspension of disbelief in something as outlandish and fanciful 40K is... well, it's beyond pedantic and more than a little moronic, if I'm being blunt.
Anfauglir wrote: Our current periodic table exists using only our current knowledge and access to currently known/obtainable materials. It's very likely that even IRL, in the 41st millenium (if we're still around, of course) the periodic table will look different to what it does now. Using new information and new materials (again, assuming we've actually improved/expanded our spacefaring abilities). Remember, "scientific fact" also used to tell us the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe, and all sorts of other weird and quirky "facts" that, nowadays, with access to more/better knowledge, seem extremely silly and unbelievable. That's just using IRL as a grounded comparison, without even going into the fact that 40K is a highly and extremely fantasitc setting. Trying to enforce something as mundane as the IRL 2nd millenium periodic table, and furthermore having that, of all things, be the thing responsible for maintaining suspension of disbelief in something as outlandish and fanciful 40K is... well, it's beyond pedantic and more than a little moronic, if I'm being blunt.
I don't think you understand how the periodic table works or why it is organized the way it is. The only way to add to the periodic table is to put more elements on the end of it because we have found every possible element up until 120 or so. I am not claiming modern science has found every element that exists. I AM claiming modern science has found every element that could realistically be used as a building material for Titans and the like because all of the other, later elements of the table are too dense.
Remember, it is a plot point that adamantium is both lighter and stronger than steel.
Except the parts that can be proven empirically as facts. Like the periodic table? I accept that there are things we don't KNOW yet. and some areas of science that are a bit wobbly and we merely have working theories for instead of provable laws (gravity). The periodic table is not one of those areas.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Of all the things to break your suspension of disbelief, it's the fact that you can't understand that 40k has a different set of elements in their periodic table?
Yes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Next you'll be complaining that mithril, or Elven weapons make no sense and ruin LOTR because they clearly can't fit on the periodic table, or something.
I always took Mithral to be Titanium as well for what it is worth.
BrianDavion wrote: sure but that's because you keep insisting on applying modern science to 40k. Clark's third law here applies. You keep insisting on "ohh X can't exist because of SCIENCE!" without considering that maybe just MAYBE in the fictional setting of 40k at least, the scientific theory of our current times has been proven wrong. people have belived all sorts of theories, that we now look back on as being quaint and well.. wrong. No reason to assume that in 40k if you showed up and started talking about the periodic table of elements you'd be met with the same reaction we'd have for someone who talked about a Heliocentric universe
Our entire scientific base being proven wrong is too much of a stretch for me. I realize that is a personal opinion but I am very much into suspension of disbelief.
Don't get me wrong, I like star wars, star trek, 40k, fantasy settings... the works. But what all of these settings have in common is that they make the effort to explain away most or all of the "reality breaking" things in some manner. I have no patience for settings that lazily hand-wave away issues like that with no explanation, or have an inconsistent portrayal of certain things. 40k has evolved and things have changed sure... but there has always been some sort of effort to explain stuff. Like the fact that adamantium was lighter than steel and many times stronger to explain why Titans could exist without collapsing in on themselves or sinking into the ground under their own weight due to the square cubed law. Or the fact that lasguns are created with superconducting materials that have very little resistance to explain away heat problems that IRL lasers are faced with... or any other myriad of things.
All they had to say way adamantium was an hitherto undiscovered alloy and I would have bought it without further explanation. But no they went the 'element' route which means it is Titanium or nothing. At least from my perspective.
No they don't. Star Wars mostly just plunks you in the setting, says "this here's the way things are" and moves the story forward, without expanding anything beyond that (the explination is mostly in RPG supplements etc that come later) Star Trek just spews out scientific buzzwords.. "it works because of the quantum flux stavlizier interfaces with the dohickey"
trek and SW are much like 40k, in that the stuff is there to tell the story, when they focus on explaining things is when you get Midichlorians and Threshhold.
JohnnyHell wrote: It’s science fiction. They made up an element. It’s that simple! It doesn’t have to fit real-world rules.
(How did an essentially troll thread end up on this entirely random tangent???)
Go figure.
But be it a theory or not a thoery the original table of element looked already different because stuff has been added in. It had some blanks to fill up in the beginning if I remember correctly, that in later centuris were finally found. So no, it is not stupid at all to say that maybe in this fictionnal universe (where remember is very much bearing the fingerprint of fantasy) our current table could have proven to be utterly outdated. There's no issue with that.
Find me wraithbone on the chart for starter.... It IS a made up element. They can make up an element that turns into pig when on contact with an ultrasmurf if they fancy, because 40k does'nt comply to our physics or logic (see above that turdish bolter bullpup design that fires nonetheless). You can try as hard as you want. And if you have problems with setting ditching issues with "uh that's mysterious but that's how", well then I'm afraid you're not in the right setting, because it is keen on mystery and science-magic.
Except the parts that can be proven empirically as facts. Like the periodic table? I accept that there are things we don't KNOW yet. and some areas of science that are a bit wobbly and we merely have working theories for instead of provable laws (gravity). The periodic table is not one of those areas.
Sorry, but like with all science, the periodic table is STILL a theory.
We can assign beliefs and attempt to make a rational explanation for every phenomena we see, including gravity, time, atomic structure, and literally everything else. However, the only true fact is that we can currently only perceive these phenomena, and try and make an understanding of them, but not truly KNOW.
Unless you're omniscient, the universe is still just humanity trying to collectively figure out what is going on, with varying degrees of theory.
I again point to the plum pudding model. That was once science. The world being flat was science. Humans being completely unrelated to the other animals on the planet was science. And you're arrogant enough to presume that there will be no more revolutionary discoveries, especially in a fictional universe?
All GW would have to say is "humanity realised that their previous understanding of physics was woefully inadequate when they experienced the wider galaxy". Oh wait, that's basically the Golden Age.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Of all the things to break your suspension of disbelief, it's the fact that you can't understand that 40k has a different set of elements in their periodic table?
Yes.
In which case, I really think this isn't the right kind of sci-fi or fantasy for you.
It's clear that 40k does not, and has not, worked by our definition of physics since its creation. This isn't new. If you're going to insist on trying to apply (theoretical) modern beliefs to a fantasy setting set millennia after our timeline, then I think you've given yourself a rather Sisyphean task.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Next you'll be complaining that mithril, or Elven weapons make no sense and ruin LOTR because they clearly can't fit on the periodic table, or something.
I always took Mithral to be Titanium as well for what it is worth.
That's kinda difficult, considering how hard it is to refine titanium. It's impossible to do with conventional smelting because it creates titanium carbide - a ceramic material. I don't know about you, but mithril don't look ceramic to me. And, what do you know, but all the smelting we see in LOTR is typical carbon smelting - mithril being titanium is unlikely, if we apply the same logic you do to 40k.
And how do Elven weapons work, in that they glow selectively?
BrianDavion wrote: sure but that's because you keep insisting on applying modern science to 40k. Clark's third law here applies. You keep insisting on "ohh X can't exist because of SCIENCE!" without considering that maybe just MAYBE in the fictional setting of 40k at least, the scientific theory of our current times has been proven wrong. people have belived all sorts of theories, that we now look back on as being quaint and well.. wrong. No reason to assume that in 40k if you showed up and started talking about the periodic table of elements you'd be met with the same reaction we'd have for someone who talked about a Heliocentric universe
Our entire scientific base being proven wrong is too much of a stretch for me. I realize that is a personal opinion but I am very much into suspension of disbelief.
Heaven forfend if you were born in 1911, when the plum pudding model was revoked. Or when Newton's apple landed. Or when Einstein proposed the Theory of Relativity.
How long have we been on Earth, and how much do we think we know? Now consider how long people have been around in 40k - you seriously don't think that science as we know it could flip on it's head? And that's assuming 40k even HAD the same scientific principles as we do.
Don't get me wrong, I like star wars, star trek, 40k, fantasy settings... the works. But what all of these settings have in common is that they make the effort to explain away most or all of the "reality breaking" things in some manner. I have no patience for settings that lazily hand-wave away issues like that with no explanation, or have an inconsistent portrayal of certain things. 40k has evolved and things have changed sure... but there has always been some sort of effort to explain stuff. Like the fact that adamantium was lighter than steel and many times stronger to explain why Titans could exist without collapsing in on themselves or sinking into the ground under their own weight due to the square cubed law. Or the fact that lasguns are created with superconducting materials that have very little resistance to explain away heat problems that IRL lasers are faced with... or any other myriad of things.
Physics are different in 40k. That's a simple enough solution. It's fantasy.
Star Trek invents technobabble. Do you seriously expect show writers to have a strong enough grasp of physics that they could propose a "realistic" thing for all that they do?
Star Wars actually doesn't really explain much. Not directly. Sure, we know lightsabers are powered somewhat by Kyber crystals. How? Now we're back at Star Trek's technobabble.
40k simply says "this is a thing". They don't have an answer, because they don't need one - 40k is not beholden to our grasp of the world. Therefore, your attempts to do so are antithetical to the world they have created.
All they had to say way adamantium was an hitherto undiscovered alloy and I would have bought it without further explanation. But no they went the 'element' route which means it is Titanium or nothing. At least from my perspective.
Considering that our current understanding of titanium is different to what we see of Adamantium, I doubt it. I would far more readily believe that 40k had an entirely unique physics models than our world, than believe titanium was the same as adamantium.
w1zard wrote:I don't think you understand how the periodic table works or why it is organized the way it is. The only way to add to the periodic table is to put more elements on the end of it because we have found every possible element up until 120 or so. I am not claiming modern science has found every element that exists. I AM claiming modern science has found every element that could realistically be used as a building material for Titans and the like because all of the other, later elements of the table are too dense.
Exactly - you hit my point perfectly, and I don't even think you knew it:
Modern science.
What makes you think that 40k obeys the laws of modern science when it takes place millennia afterward? You still think modern science will be true a hundred years from now? A thousand? What makes you even think it's bound to the same laws of physics?
Everything you claim as "possible" and "impossible" is only deemed so by our modern theories. When something "impossible" does occur, there is one conclusion: that is it not "impossible" and that our current understanding is wrong. Given how it is clearly "possible" that adamantium exists in 40k, that means that the things that say it is "impossible" IRL are wrong.
Remember, it is a plot point that adamantium is both lighter and stronger than steel.
Yup. Because the physics for that fictional world allow it to be so.
In this debate I think it's always good to remember Clark's Third Law. "Any sufficantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" this was a quote Clark used to make a point... if something is so much more advanced you simply can't understand it because you don't have sufficant knowlege base, the classic example of this is "give Da Vinci a computer. He'll proclaim it must be sorcery" 40kIMHO SHOULD be like this, it should be filled with all sorts of weird stuff that simply isn't explainable with modern science, monomolecular blade that hold an edge? "well gak man! thats some funky technosorcery!" entire types of advanced materials we've never heard of "well crap! I guess once we left the solar system we realized how flawed our understanding of materials where!" don't over think it, just accept that 40k's technology is so much differant from ours it might as well be magic.
Anfauglir wrote: Our current periodic table exists using only our current knowledge and access to currently known/obtainable materials. It's very likely that even IRL, in the 41st millenium (if we're still around, of course) the periodic table will look different to what it does now. Using new information and new materials (again, assuming we've actually improved/expanded our spacefaring abilities). Remember, "scientific fact" also used to tell us the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe, and all sorts of other weird and quirky "facts" that, nowadays, with access to more/better knowledge, seem extremely silly and unbelievable. That's just using IRL as a grounded comparison, without even going into the fact that 40K is a highly and extremely fantasitc setting. Trying to enforce something as mundane as the IRL 2nd millenium periodic table, and furthermore having that, of all things, be the thing responsible for maintaining suspension of disbelief in something as outlandish and fanciful 40K is... well, it's beyond pedantic and more than a little moronic, if I'm being blunt.
I don't think you understand how the periodic table works or why it is organized the way it is. The only way to add to the periodic table is to put more elements on the end of it because we have found every possible element up until 120 or so. I am not claiming modern science has found every element that exists. I AM claiming modern science has found every element that could realistically be used as a building material for Titans and the like because all of the other, later elements of the table are too dense.
Remember, it is a plot point that adamantium is both lighter and stronger than steel.
If I recall correctly from studying physics 5 years ago, atoms are made up of Protons, neutrons and electrons, positively, neutrally and negativelly charged respectively. Originally, neutrons were not considered or detected as they have no charge.
Why do you not think its possible that there are other sub-atomic particulars within an atom, with negligible mass (like electrons) and no charge (like neutrons) but act to change a material far differently that its atomic number on the table would suggest? This would leave room "between" currently periodic elements for these new elements to exist depending, but also having the same atomic numbers due to containing the same number of protons as say, iron. Thereby needing a reorganisation of the table not based on mass or protons, but based on these yet undiscovered sub-atomic particles.
Who's also to say that some elements are disproven as elements? Say for instance, it is discovered that semi-metals such as arsenic are discovered to be not elements, but compounds found by a yet-undiscovered form of bonding that fuses the two atoms together into one, instead of modern understanding of covalent or metallic bonding? Thus each semi-metal is made of two or more elements that leave room on the table in there place.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Adamantium's made up. GW says it's naturally occurring. Therefore, it is.
Our modern understanding of the periodic table (which is still just a theory, as is all science) is not the same as the one GW invented for a whole new set of physics for 40k.
This was my point. They didn’t intend it to be a titanium alloy or some new element on the periodic table it was just a made up super material with no basis in real life what so ever.
w1zard wrote: Like I said, it breaks my suspension of disbelief.
Which is fine. But don't pretend that your personal preferences in fictional settings imply an objective flaw in 40K as a setting. 40K has never been intended to be the thing you seem to want it to be. The fact that lots of stuff in 40K is not at all scientifically plausible is not a bug, it's a feature. The 40K setting started out as an expansion to the Warhammer Fantasy world. It was explicitly built around a 1980s understanding of a mediaeval understanding of reality, filtered through 2000AD comics, Moorcock novels and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The 'rules' of the setting are not based on real-world physics in any way at all, but on how Rick Priestley imagined mediaeval peasants thought the world worked.
Yes, even in "fantasy".
It's an utterly bizarre thing to expect from fantasy, though. Mithril is not titanium, and neither is adamantium. They're entirely fantastical substances that obey the Rule of Cool and the necessities of narrative convenience.
Deadshot wrote: Why do you not think its possible that there are other sub-atomic particulars within an atom, with negligible mass (like electrons) and no charge (like neutrons) but act to change a material far differently that its atomic number on the table would suggest? This would leave room "between" currently periodic elements for these new elements to exist depending, but also having the same atomic numbers due to containing the same number of protons as say, iron. Thereby needing a reorganisation of the table not based on mass or protons, but based on these yet undiscovered sub-atomic particles.
I suppose that is theoretically possible, but it is too much of a stretch for me to maintain suspension of disbelief considering how much research and time we have poured into locating new elements and experimenting with creating new ones.
I would believe that the warp actually exists IRL how it is described in 40k before I believed that... I am not exaggerating.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Heaven forfend if you were born in 1911, when the plum pudding model was revoked. Or when Newton's apple landed. Or when Einstein proposed the Theory of Relativity.
I think you don't understand the difference between a primitive theory of how things work vs something that is provably true and will always remain true. Science isn't just a nebulous collection of theories that are constantly evolving to explain things. There are things that have been proven 100% correct and immutable. Like the fact that the earth is round, the sun is the gravitational center of the solar system, and that the speed of light is the upper limit of velocity in real space. Heliocentrism is no more open to debate than the fundamentals of the periodic table. We don't know everything, this is true, but we have PROVEN a lot of things beyond reasonable criticism.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: What makes you think that 40k obeys the laws of modern science when it takes place millennia afterward? You still think modern science will be true a hundred years from now? A thousand? What makes you even think it's bound to the same laws of physics?
Because the known areas of the periodic table, things like F=MA, and a triangle having three sides are true now, and will always be true even a billion years from now. These things are called "laws" as opposed to "theories" because they are true, 100% undeniably and provably true, and are immutable barring something "changing the rules". If a fairy came along in M21 and waved a magic wand and completely redid the periodic table I would accept more readily the idea that adamantium is an element, but that is not a part of the lore, so I have to assume that 40k operates under the same principles and materials laws as we do under modern day science.
It is one thing to explain away things like space ships and power armor with 40k years of scientific advancement... it is quite another thing to claim that 40k years somehow changes the basic laws of the universe, and things like physics and chemistry work fundamentally differently then how we have PROVEN them to work in the modern day.
Our second millennium periodic table fails to take into account all atomic components; it considers 'Protons, Electrons and Neutrons', but fails to consider 'Empyrions'.
). So, let's humour the other poster for a second and say the rate of fire for the lascannon matched the heavy bolter... the changes? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They were claiming there isn't a las equivalent of the heavy bolter; there is. If they want a "machine-gun" las, there's the multilaser. If they want a heavy weapon-type heavy lasgun, that can be carried by Marines plugged into their backs, etc - you know, exactly as they described in the post I replied to - then there's the lascannon. On the 
incredibly loyal Astartes 
But thanks for bringing more elements to the thread, that's useful of course.
.
and must be lacking the kicker component to even fit in the gun. Likewise there wouldn't even be bolt casings big enough to justify the ejection port on boltguns unless the brass containing the kicker was fairly significant. 
