Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Basically this thread comes out of a disscussion between myself and another but I thought I would expand the discussion into a wide range of 40k tech that bugs people

first off the basics with real life counterpoints and my personal thoughts/knowledge

Autoguns- These are basically Marginally stronger than modern assault rifles, and depending on the fluff, about as strong as lasguns, or "stronger" i.e. penetrate better. Though some fluff has lasguns destroying tanks (think C.S. Goto like fluff knowledge)
Heavy stubbers- Machine guns of all kinds from MG42's to MH2B's
Autocannons- just that 20-30mm autocannons (though the OLD OLD OLD OLD wargear book says they are basically modern tank cannons, most of the new stuff puts them at around the level of a high end bushmaster)

Boltguns- and heres where the main discussion comes from, Bolt weapons are described as what is basically and advanced gyrojet system, with the bolt being propelled by a small charge to get it out of the gun before it's main rocket motor fires off. I still think that like gyrojets, they are more powerful at longer ranges due to higher veolocity but in either case the standard bolt also has an explosive charge (set to explode after penetration).

Missiles- These I would greatly like to know more about, everything I have read would put them as Generation II shaped charges, which are significantly less powerful than current modern generation III copper lined linear shaped charges. but I need more info.

If I have missed anything and I know I have, feel free to post.

You asked for sources, but I've already cited many. Here are page numbers of a selection of the sources I have cited thus far (out of materials I currently have with me):

Deathwatch, page 146-147: They are noted to be temperamental and requiring lots of maintenance, but no mention of the supposed weakness. Their stats do not have the supposed weakness.

Dark Heresy, pages 130, 133-134: They are noted to be expensive, temperamental, somewhat difficult to manufacture and requiring lots of maintenance, but no mention of the supposed weakness. Their stats do not have the supposed weakness.

Dark Heresy - The Inquisitor's Handbook, pages 109, 120, 171, 177, 187: Across the numerable examples of Bolt Weapons across the galaxy, not one is mentioned to have the supposed weakness. Their stats do not reflect the supposed weakness.

Dawn of War 2: Across the various wargears in the game, not one mentions the supposed weakness. The effectiveness of Bolt weapons is effected by range the same as everything else-- more damage is done when the unit is closer for all kinds of bolt weapons.

Codex: Space Marines, pages 97-98, 144: No mention of the supposed weakness in any examples of bolt weapons. The stats do not reflect the supposed weakness.


Bolt weapons do not have the supposed weakness you accused them of having (ineffectiveness at close range). They never have. Do not attempt to talk about it supposedly "violating the laws of physics", because all that the bolter shell (note, it is specifically a shell, and they produce spent shell casings as noted by Dark Heresy) would need to do in order to counteract the supposed weakness is by simply having enough propellant to make the shell lethal at close range.

You are the one claiming the weakness exists. You must prove it. I do not have to disprove the supposed weakness-- proving a negative is impossible-- but I cited many sources that have a complete and utter lack of the supposed weakness.

I never said inneffective just less powerful there is a difference and all of those sources just mention the gyroject like system which implies that I am correct. It doesn't have to state it explicitly if it identifies it as a rocket, then it's automatically understood that at a longer range it's going to be stronger.

I mean If it hit you with a baseball and then hit you with another baseball at a quarter less of the weight and twice the velocity the higher velocity one is going to hurt more. That's just how bolts work.

I'm still waiting for you to cite an actual source.

Being less powerful at close range is a weakness. This supposed weakness has yet to be proven to exist. I have cited many canon examples produced by Games Workshop or in coordination with Games Workshop (GW's own writers worked on FFG's Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch series) where this supposed weakness does not exist. You have yet to cite any example outside of fan-made material to prove that it does.

Thus far, you are losing this argument, and have been for a while.

as soon as I can find a copy of Warhammer 40k: wargear I will. It's a commonly held staple of the community, that your sources don't mention this weakness does not proove your point either as none of them go into detail about the weapons themselve, but only mention them on a basic operating procedure. After all autoguns are less powerful at long ranges you don't see that mentioned anywhere in the fluff because it's supposed to be understood, just as with your sources it's supposed to be understood that as they accelerate through their flight path they are more powerful at longer ranges than they are up close. In any case it's too complicated of a mechanic to add to a table top game, and one I don't think relic would catch as they aren't all fluff buffs. so that it isn't represented isn't a big deal. Certain editions don't even refer to bolters as firing rockets they just call them bolts. so of course they're not going to go into detail about their effectiveness at different ranges.

Just look at the cartridge


They have very little initial charge leaving most of the energy of the round in the rocket.

gendoikari87 wrote:that your sources don't mention this weakness does not proove your point

I don't need to prove my point. I just need to watch as you fail to prove yours.

The onus is on you to prove that the supposed weakness exists.

c-c-c-c-ombo breaker. (sorry, 1 on 1 conversations isn't my thing)

Also, gendoikar, U mad? Still waiting for your proof (or lack there-of)

battle Brother Lucifer wrote:c-c-c-c-ombo breaker. (sorry, 1 on 1 conversations isn't my thing)

Also, gendoikar, U mad? Still waiting for your proof (or lack there-of)

it's not a lack there of, anyone with half a brain can figure this out, I just don't have any books near me so I have to go download them.

Hmm, you mean anyone with half a brain can ignore Melissia's sources?

Sorry gendoikari87, no mention of bolt weapons being less effective at close range in the 2e wargear book. Checked through the bolt pistol, boltgun, stormbolter and heavy bolter sections to see if i could find a mention. I had a fun time reading the rest of the book after that, it is pretty good, especially 90 wound assault cannons. So thanks for giving me a reason to dig it out of my "obsolete" draw.

As much as it is worth i think that bolt weapons may have slightly less penetration power at short range, ie. before the rocket motor fires. This would only really become noticeable with contact shots and even then would be negligable if sufficient initial propellant was used.

In all the sources they state that the initial charge is small, just enough to get the bolt out of the barrel and ignite the main rocket motor. It does not take a genious to plot out the kinetic energy of the round, at the muzzel it's low and increases with time as the rocket motor accelerates it, increasing the kinetic energy until the rocket motor is exhausted at which point the kinetic energy goes down. Just because they don't explicitly state this doesn't mean thats how they work, they already call them rockets, and anyone with even half a brain can acknowledge that something going faster is going to hurt more, and that a rocket goes faster the farther it travels. What mellissa is essentially saying is that as the bolt goes faster, the energy is less and is less powerful. She's reading into something that isn't there, and is understood by the community and really almost 90% of the people on earth that's why they don't put it in the readings, and it's not something they want to complicate the game systems with.

In essence they have prooven me right they just refuse to see it because it does not explicitly state something that is too much of a no brainer to write down. They averaged the power of the bolter at both extremes as the main profile for the weapon to make it simple. Thats it and as soon as I find a source that explicitly states this I'll show it but untill then if they dont' pull out someting that says bolts aren't mini rockets they are wrong on every level and anyone who thinks for two seconds can tell i'm right.

You are getting absurdly close to flaming, gendoikari. If you want to argue with logic rather than sources (because you do not have sources, and I propose that is fine because they do not exist anyway), we can do so. Consider this argument:

Just because you are unwilling to believe in the idea that bolters are not exact replicas of gyrojet weapons in function does not mean that you are right. Just because the bolter shell (and it is a shell, not a bullet, or a round, or whatever) uses a rocket propulsion at one point does not mean that this is all that it uses, or that its other aspects are minimized.

Rather, I compare a bolter's initial stage of firing to a shotgun firing a shotgun shell. The boltgun fires in much the same way as firing a shotgun slug. The shell casing is ejected (yes, boltguns do have shell casings, as noted in my previous citations) after firing, and the shell itself has terminal velocity before exiting the barrel. This also accounts for the gun's recoil. An instant (speaking of a very small fraction of a second, far too fast for the human mind to notice) after the bolter shell leaves the barrel of the weapon, it ignites its rocket, continuing to its target. An instant (again, very small fraction of a second) after piercing the target, the shell explodes, primarily intending to cause damage through the concussive force of the explosion rather than through shrapnel in most (but not all) bolter shell designs.

With all of this in mind, there is no logical reason why a bolter shell MUST move slower (And thus have less penetrating power) at short range than it does at long range.

Because there is no logical argument for your position, the onus remains on you to prove that there is canon to support it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:In all the sources

Cite your sources. Give direct quotations.

Logic doesn't work for warhammer. Why don't we argue about how big bolter rounds are, yet so many fit in those small clips, when logically it doesn't work.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Melissia, e-highfive

With all of this in mind, there is no logical reason why a bolter shell MUST move slower (And thus have less penetrating power) at short range than it does at long range.

..... it's a rocket.

The miniatures are not made to scale, so they wouldn't make sense even if they didn't have .75 cal shells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:..... it's a rocket.

Irrelevant, as I explained above.

Melissia wrote:The miniatures are not made to scale, so they wouldn't make sense even if they didn't have .75 cal shells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:..... it's a rocket.

Irrelevant, as I explained above.

I mean in all the pictures, such as the 4th (I think) Sm codex in that shows the bolter, and a creppy monk-rat thing pouring oil on it.
Those bolts would fit like, 5 to a mag going by those pictures.

Its all irrelevant anyway.

I think you're WAY overestimating the size of bolter shells. .75 cal is 3/4ths of an inch in diameter-- about 19.05 milimeters thick. Keep in mind that Space Marines are well over eight feet tall when in power armor, and then look at the clips again. Their size is deceptive.

Melissia wrote:The miniatures are not made to scale, so they wouldn't make sense even if they didn't have .75 cal shells.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:..... it's a rocket.

Irrelevant, as I explained above.

how is it irrelevant, if you have some initial velocity and accelerate you have a higher kinetic energy, it takes time to accelerate and therefore distance therefore it has higher kinetic energy at longer distances.

So no its other aspects are not minimized the rocket adds kinetic energy per unit time so the longer the bolt is in the air the more energy it has. and until I can download some sources for you I'm going to quit arguing. I can see your are ignoring everything i have to say.

I think you're WAY overestimating the size of bolter shells. .75 cal is 3/4ths of an inch in diameter-- about 19.05 milimeters thick.

Different sources State different sizes but most stick to .75/1.25 for bolters and heavy bolters, and some say .5 and .75 just depends on where you read, wargear 2nd ed uses .75 for the standard bolter, most every where else its .50

That is when the size is given, most of the time it's not.

There are so many unexplained point on bolter function that it is almost impossible to work out exactly how they work. What if the rocket propellant burns almost instantly, giving a short impulse of thrust? What if the terminal velocity of the shell is reached almost instantly, making the velocity of the projectile a near constant. What if they are constucted from some super dense cookie dough, baking in mid flight and delivering cokkie goodness to your enemies?

Ok so the last point may have been stretching it but trying to analyse things such as material engineering and chemical science from either short paragraphs of fluff or extrapolating knowledge from 38000 years previously is just doomed to misunderstanding.

I doubt that they function exactly as gyrojets do in real life. Can you not stop a gyrojet by putting a gloved hand over the barrel? Would seem a bit off to stop the foremost infantry weapon of the imperium by sticking your finger in it.

gendoikari87, it seems more as though you're trying to convince yourself of something untrue.

Why don't you just drop the whole argument now, as you're getting nowhere and just proving yourself more and more wrong.

gendoikari87 wrote:how is it irrelevant

Because it is not just a rocket.

Also, I present to you the concept of Terminal Velocity. To quote Wikipedia:

In fluid dynamics an object is moving at its terminal velocity if its speed is constant due to the restraining force exerted by the air, water or other fluid through which it is moving.

Just because force is exerted upon an object does not mean that it will accelerate. You mentioned physics earlier, but any physics class beyond high school level would have taught these kinds of concepts.

Just because force is exerted upon an object does not mean that it will accelerate. You mentioned physics earlier, but any physics class beyond high school level would have taught these kinds of concepts.

I AM a physics major, Terminal velocity is mostly a term used for free fall objects, it's when the force of air resistance as a quadratic term of the velocity equals the force on the object (this is normally the force due to gravity when most people talk about terminal velocity) and with a rocket engine this velocity is much much higher due to the much greater force on the object so just because it's reached the "terminal Velocity" does not mean it stops accelerating, it just means that if gravity is the only force acting on the object it will stop accelerating. Supersonic bullets fired from a gun are initially at a much higher velocity than their terminal of around 60-200mph but the force of air resistance slows them down, a rocket overcomes this force of air resistance accelerating them to higher speeds, and IF like the poster above said the rocket fires in such a short time interval it's near instantaneous there would be no advantage over a solid projectile weapon.

gendoikari87 wrote:"terminal Velocity" does not mean it stops accelerating, it just means that if gravity is the only force acting on the object it will stop accelerating.

I'm sorry? I studied Physics at university and I thought that the definition of terminal velocity was when the force of drag equals the force of thrust and so constant velocity is reached.

Copy-paste from the Guardsem/Rhino thread; as it is more on topic here anyways:

While it is true that Bolt's gain velocity after leaving the barrel, they are far more lethal than a 9mm at, and shortly after the barrel. Melissa is correct they are Not exactly gyro-jets; they are far superior to them, but fire in nearly the same manner(the first stage, the charge in the casing gives them a lethal velocity upon exiting the barrel and can penetrate most things with that velocity alone)

The benefit to the gyro-jet round format(remember they still do not = gyro-jet rounds) to them is that they do not lose any of that velocity as the bullet travels "downrange" (in fact it picks up extra velocity) this does more to long range accuracy than it does to penetrative power however(a problem I have always had with this is the fluff =/= the rules with such a short range given to the bolter profile).

And Melissa is right there is no weakness to bolts at close range, they are extremely lethal.

As to some of the other comparisons:
Lasguns and autoguns are comparable to 7.62mm NATO rounds; figure on them being a more advanced version of an AK(better accuracy, and less kick with the autoguns, no kick with the Las).

Las and Auto Pistols do just as much damage as the rifles but do so with less range(due to barrel length) and a lower fire rate.

Heavy Stubbers are flat-out HMGs not at all like the MG 42, but the BMG.50 and other HMGs (the Base vehicle mounted model even looks exactly like the browning M2 HMG, which fires a .50 bmg round).

Autocannons are spot on.

Terminal Velocity does not just apply to freefall. It, and the concepts that represent and cause it, apply to any type of physics that does not take place in a vacuum. Air resistance slows down objects, this is why bullets are slowed down as time goes on. Bolters do not have this weakness as the rocket propellant assists them in maintaining speed, but that does not mean resistance suddenly ceases to exsist. Nor does having a second stage where they are propelled as a rocket mean that bolter shells exit the barrel at speeds less than conventional bullets.

gendoikari87 wrote:physicsphysicyphysics

Objects in free-fall have force applied to them by gravity. When the addition of force does not increase speed, it reaches terminal velocity.

Is there a reason why the terminal velocity is impossible for the bolt round to reach before the jet turns on?

I'm sorry? I studied Physics at university and I thought that the definition of terminal velocity was when the force of drag equals the force of thrust and so constant velocity is reached.

In general it's used for free fall, not specifically but it's what MOST people refer to when they say free fall. But if your already going faster than the "terminal" velocity your velocity is not constant, so yes you were apparantly taught wrong, because then you slow down to that terminal velocity.

And Melissa is right there is no weakness to bolts at close range, they are extremely lethal.

and yet still more lethal at longer ranges so my point is still valid. I bow out as I'm tired of explaing basic tenants of physics. Good night.

gendoikari87 wrote:I mean If it hit you with a baseball and then hit you with another baseball at a quarter less of the weight and twice the velocity the higher velocity one is going to hurt more. That's just how bolts work.

No, that is not how bolts work. Bolts are explosive rounds. This means that even if you manage to back up your claim that they speed up significantly as they fly, the main method of inflicting damage will remain of constant effectiveness.

For a supposed physics major, then you don't appear to know much about physics...

Terminal velocity DOES NOT merely refer to freefall. Quit mentioning freefall, it is irrelevant.

Melissia wrote:For a supposed physics major, then you don't appear to know much about physics...

Terminal velocity DOES NOT merely refer to freefall. Quit mentioning freefall, it is irrelevant.

I said in most cases it refers to free fall not everything and not all the time. In either case

A. the Explosive does not go off untill after penetration, so this is irrelevant unless you can find sources that state they go off on impact in which case the velocity of the round will be largly irrelevant.

B. if the charge is enough to propell it to lethal speeds with so little room for the charge, then A. the rocket propellant is less powerful and they would bebefit more by having a higher ratio of initial charge to rocket propellan or B. the Rocket propellant has a higher energy density and it would benefit them to replace all of the charge with the rocket propellant.