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.

Why is it that in all the fluff every single blade type weapon ever has a monomolecular edge? I understand that it's meant to be sharp enough to go through power armor and daemon junk and stuff but enough is enough. Especially when the tiny monomolecular discs from a shuriken weapon gain AP2 on a roll of a six while the rocket punch of a bolter or the extremely fast moving, monomolecular teeth of a chainsword don't have the same quality.

Just saying that in the fluff, they should come up with different ways to describe sharp things so that we have an understanding of how sharp it is (and how it should be portrayed on the table top)

Sadly when you have a limited range over which to point stats, you can't differentiate too much. Plus having millions of special rules for different items is a sure way to confuse the hell out of people.

Shuriken weapons are not just sharp, they are also being projected at a very high velocity.

Then why not make them all equivalent? The same way in that all "power field" weapons (except fists/klaws which are different in the fluff as well) used to be the same? Or figure out a way to just say "well a chainsword doesn't have a monomolecular edge, that's just shuriken weapons, chainswords are just chainsaw swords" that would make more sense than "these are the same quality of weapon but one has better special rules in the game"

I'm not asking the game to be rewritten, I just wish the fluff writers would stop using "monomolecular blades" for EVERYTHING

The answer is the material:

Fire a solid-iron slug at a tank.
PLINK

Fire a depleted-uranium sabot - RIGHT THROUGH.

Or for a more blatantly similar comparison:

What cuts better and retains an edge better:
A blade of copper, or Damascus steel?

That wasn't the question though, because in the fluff (to use your example) every bladed weapon is Damascus steel. I understand that it makes it sound cooler and more deadly for it to be "ohohohoho macromolecular" but it just doesn't make any sense. I'm not asking you to explain why one weapon is better than the other, I'm asking you why every author working for GW or BL describes them as the SAME.

They are both monomolecular, but chainswords and shurikens are not made of the same material.

Chainswords are typically made of whatever material the IoM likes to make their weapons out of, usually some sort of futuristic metal alloy.

Shurikens on the other hand, are made out of this crystalline plastic...stuff that's as durable if not better than what the IoM uses.

It's like the difference between a crossbow bolt made out of iron and a crossbow bolt made out of steel. Both the same engineering techniques and principles, but one's a lot deadlier than the other.

 bocatt wrote:
That wasn't the question though, because in the fluff (to use your example) every bladed weapon is Damascus steel. I understand that it makes it sound cooler and more deadly for it to be "ohohohoho macromolecular" but it just doesn't make any sense. I'm not asking you to explain why one weapon is better than the other, I'm asking you why every author working for GW or BL describes them as the SAME.

It's because monomolecular weapons aren't all the same material. You cannot get a material called 'monomolecular', you get a material that is then reduced to only a single molecule. A single molecule of iron is monomolecular; a single molecule of of steel is molomolecular; but they are not the same material.

If you've bought a knife, you'd know that the metal used in it's making does not determine it's sharpness. It's the width of the edge. That's why a knife sharpener, which narrows the edge, makes knives sharper. If it was the metal that mattered, I'd just buy a titanium or whatever the sharpest metal knife was and be done, but that's not how it works. A knife blunts with use, making a flatter and wider edge to cut with. The grade of the metal, iron, steel, whatever, only dictates how durable the knife is and how long it will hold it's edge before needing to be sharpened again.

So no, material used in it's making does not effect it's sharpness. A piece of wraithbone, with a monomolecular edge (although much less durable) is just as sharp as the monomolecular teeth of a Space Marine chainsword. So too would a monomolecular piece of paper shear through power armor. It would be incredibly unwieldy and easily torn lengthwise but the exaggeration is accurate.

So why are these two weapons (read: almost every bladed weapon ever described by GW or BL fluff writers) the same? Do they really just lack the imagination to come up with another reason or description of the weapon's sharpness? I doubt it. Should they change it so that some weapons have a regular edge and only cut through cultist armor while super advanced Eldar trickery bone weapons can cut through Space Marine armor with enough skill? In fluff and on the tabletop? I think so.

The material comes in when you call into question the ability of things like armour to stop it. A single molecule of paper may have the same sharpness as a single molecule of steel, but which one has the greater capacity to keep doing damage?

If material doesn't make a slight bit of difference, then why exactly aren't chainswords made out of monomolecular cardboard instead of expensive materials?

The material comes in when you call into question the ability of things like armour to stop it. A single molecule of paper may have the same sharpness as a single molecule of steel, but which one has the greater capacity to keep doing damage?

If material doesn't make a slight bit of difference, then why exactly aren't chainswords made out of monomolecular cardboard instead of expensive materials?

This basically. I can have a sheet of "monomolecular" water, but I'm not exactly shaking at the sight of a blade made of one molecule thick ice. That being said, the idea of a monomolecular trait that can be applied to weapons is very interesting, maybe put it in the proposed rule forum and see what develops.

 bocatt wrote:

So why are these two weapons (read: almost every bladed weapon ever described by GW or BL fluff writers) the same? Do they really just lack the imagination to come up with another reason or description of the weapon's sharpness? I doubt it. Should they change it so that some weapons have a regular edge and only cut through cultist armor while super advanced Eldar trickery bone weapons can cut through Space Marine armor with enough skill? In fluff and on the tabletop? I think so.

I'm not sure if it's described in the Codex. However I'd imagine that the difference lies in the fact that shuriken weapons fire hundreds of small discs at the target allowing for any weak spots (such as joints and cracks) to be hit and penetrated. A chainsword has a much slower 'rate of fire'.

Well you try coming up with a way to make a sword sound cool and high tech. They are sharp pieces of metal on a sticks. Not a lot you can do there. They should do better though. Maybe not every blade needs to be super thin. I don't think a chain sword needs micro thin teeth seeing as it's a chainsaw. Maybe you could head cannon that only the eldar have micro thin blades and start thinking up other kinds of blades for the other fractions.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
The material comes in when you call into question the ability of things like armour to stop it. A single molecule of paper may have the same sharpness as a single molecule of steel, but which one has the greater capacity to keep doing damage?

But I'm not talking about a "capacity to keep doing damage" we assume that the resources required to keep doing battle are there, else we would have weapon break and out of ammo rules, so whether the weapon is a sheet of water or shuriken discs, we bend the laws of physics to always be able to hit someone with it. You're talking about durability, which is a part of the fluff and has been discussed at length to what certain things are made of, it just didn't make the transition to the boardtop because giving everything a material property, like ceramite or wraithbone, and have different properties interacting is just outside the scope GW wants for their game.

What I'm talking about is the degree of damage done which is very easily within the scope of the game in the form of Strength and AP values of weapons. Monomolecular weapons are sharp. Sharp enough to part materials at the molecular level which is insane. Therefore, if it truly is that sharp, it should be stronger, because if we assume it can be wielded, then we assume you can hit someone with it (should you roll good enough) and I say it should have a different profile (higher strength, lower AP) if it really is monomolecular like the fluff writers say it is.

If they just want to retcon the chainswords to have diamond teeth (which would explain how they can be so ridiculously durable as they are on the tabletop and in some fluff instances) then that's fine, now it doesnt have to change on the tabletop, it's not the same sharpness as monomolecular shuriken weapons and can thus have a different profile and be explained/backed up by the fluff. If you want to keep every weapon description the same, give it the same profile on the tabletop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:
Well you try coming up with a way to make a sword sound cool and high tech. They are sharp pieces of metal on a sticks. Not a lot you can do there. They should do better though. Maybe not every blade needs to be super thin. I don't think a chain sword needs micro thin teeth seeing as it's a chainsaw. Maybe you could head cannon that only the eldar have micro thin blades and start thinking up other kinds of blades for the other fractions.

This. This is what I meant.

Because GW doesn't understand these things, perhaps? I noticed this as well, and it's kind of silly. Especially considering that a true monomolecular blade would never retain its sharpness, we have to assume that they are made of sufficiently high-grade (as in, fictionally strong; Adamantium and the like) material to continue be referred to as a "monomolecular blade" beyond its first use.

Also, the velocity of a shuriken weapon doesn't matter. Force is mass times acceleration. Although the shuriken is traveling much faster than a swung blade, its weight is practically negligible, whereas a swung blade (especially with the weight of the wielder thrown in) is much, much heavier. A car might be a lot slower than a bullet, but at speed it is definitely delivering much more force.

I definitely head canon that the standard CCWs are not mono-molecular blades of any sort. They don't even have an AP value, much less confer any real bonus relating to being very sharp! Apparently, a mono-molecular blade wielded by a Space Marine is just as lethal as that very same Space Marine punching you in the face. Yes, the limited range exists, but even in the fluff we don't see Marines carving through everything with their generic combat knives. That's what chainswords are for, or specifically the 'chain' part.

EDIT: Let's not forget that the setting's equivalent of razor wire is just "monomolecular wire", which would not only be pretty much instantly fatal (assuming that it has any structural integrity at all) to everything, but also be entirely invisible.

EDIT2: Which makes me think even more that GW just like to throw these fancy terms around.

You have to ask how wide the metal becomes and how quickly after the edge. If it's very very thin and strong all the way through, it will have better penetration. If it gets wide, you're going to end up having more resistance.

 bocatt wrote:
Then why not make them all equivalent? The same way in that all "power field" weapons (except fists/klaws which are different in the fluff as well) used to be the same? Or figure out a way to just say "well a chainsword doesn't have a monomolecular edge, that's just shuriken weapons, chainswords are just chainsaw swords" that would make more sense than "these are the same quality of weapon but one has better special rules in the game"

I'm not asking the game to be rewritten, I just wish the fluff writers would stop using "monomolecular blades" for EVERYTHING

You're missing the point. W40K Monomolecular bladed weapons are the only thing capable of punching through armor besides a power weapon. A normal sword would be useless in W40K. The only reason why chain-weapons are so lethal is their monomolecular teeth, which can slice through ceramite and admantanium armor via cutting molecular bonds because their armor is that tough.

This is also ignoring that W40K's idea of monomolecular is stupid and nothing like the real version.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because GW doesn't understand these things, perhaps? I noticed this as well, and it's kind of silly. Especially considering that a true monomolecular blade would never retain its sharpness, we have to assume that they are made of sufficiently high-grade (as in, fictionally strong; Adamantium and the like) material to continue be referred to as a "monomolecular blade" beyond its first use.

Also, the velocity of a shuriken weapon doesn't matter. Force is mass times acceleration. Although the shuriken is traveling much faster than a swung blade, its weight is practically negligible, whereas a swung blade (especially with the weight of the wielder thrown in) is much, much heavier. A car might be a lot slower than a bullet, but at speed it is definitely delivering much more force.

I definitely head canon that the standard CCWs are not mono-molecular blades of any sort. They don't even have an AP value, much less confer any real bonus relating to being very sharp! Apparently, a mono-molecular blade wielded by a Space Marine is just as lethal as that very same Space Marine punching you in the face. Yes, the limited range exists, but even in the fluff we don't see Marines carving through everything with their generic combat knives. That's what chainswords are for, or specifically the 'chain' part.

EDIT: Let's not forget that the setting's equivalent of razor wire is just "monomolecular wire", which would not only be pretty much instantly fatal (assuming that it has any structural integrity at all) to everything, but also be entirely invisible.

EDIT2: Which makes me think even more that GW just like to throw these fancy terms around.

If you assume that GW is just throwing words around, you get a lot farther then if you assume they know what they are talking about. : GW isn't the only one who uses monomolecular as a buzz word for space sword though. If you want to give them credit, they are one of the few settings that actually has more then just monomolecular blades. You know they have chain swords and magic swords and lances with bombs on them. They could do better, but they could also do much worse.

nomotog wrote:

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Because GW doesn't understand these things, perhaps? I noticed this as well, and it's kind of silly. Especially considering that a true monomolecular blade would never retain its sharpness, we have to assume that they are made of sufficiently high-grade (as in, fictionally strong; Adamantium and the like) material to continue be referred to as a "monomolecular blade" beyond its first use.

Also, the velocity of a shuriken weapon doesn't matter. Force is mass times acceleration. Although the shuriken is traveling much faster than a swung blade, its weight is practically negligible, whereas a swung blade (especially with the weight of the wielder thrown in) is much, much heavier. A car might be a lot slower than a bullet, but at speed it is definitely delivering much more force.

I definitely head canon that the standard CCWs are not mono-molecular blades of any sort. They don't even have an AP value, much less confer any real bonus relating to being very sharp! Apparently, a mono-molecular blade wielded by a Space Marine is just as lethal as that very same Space Marine punching you in the face. Yes, the limited range exists, but even in the fluff we don't see Marines carving through everything with their generic combat knives. That's what chainswords are for, or specifically the 'chain' part.

EDIT: Let's not forget that the setting's equivalent of razor wire is just "monomolecular wire", which would not only be pretty much instantly fatal (assuming that it has any structural integrity at all) to everything, but also be entirely invisible.

EDIT2: Which makes me think even more that GW just like to throw these fancy terms around.

If you assume that GW is just throwing words around, you get a lot farther then if you assume they know what they are talking about. : GW isn't the only one who uses monomolecular as a buzz word for space sword though. If you want to give them credit, they are one of the few settings that actually as more then just monomolecular blades. You know they have chain swords and magic swords and lances with bombs on them. They could do better, but they could also do much worse.

It's still weird considering a monomolecular blade only stays monomolecular for a small amount of time during use. We have them in real life, and there's a reason why Surgeons chuck them out after one use.

They're clearly nothing like real monomolecular blades and should just be called something different all-together.

 Wyzilla wrote:

It's still weird considering a monomolecular blade only stays monomolecular for a small amount of time during use. We have them in real life, and there's a reason why Surgeons chuck them out after one use.

They're clearly nothing like real monomolecular blades and should just be called something different all-together.

One use on very tiny, very fragile tissues, yeah. That's why they would absolutely have to be made of some implausible fictional material (and even then, as stated elsewhere in the thread, so-called weapons in 40k don't even perform like it). What's funny is that for once, Ork technology makes more scientific sense than everyone else's. We can assume that the large slab of vaguely sharpened metal could have the effect of a "mono-molecular blade" if the cutting edge was actually a Warp field generated by the Waaagh!, whereas a Space Marine's combat knife is most definitely not truly mono-molecular.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

It's still weird considering a monomolecular blade only stays monomolecular for a small amount of time during use. We have them in real life, and there's a reason why Surgeons chuck them out after one use.

They're clearly nothing like real monomolecular blades and should just be called something different all-together.

One use on very tiny, very fragile tissues, yeah. That's why they would absolutely have to be made of some implausible fictional material (and even then, as stated elsewhere in the thread, so-called weapons in 40k don't even perform like it). What's funny is that for once, Ork technology makes more scientific sense than everyone else's. We can assume that the large slab of vaguely sharpened metal could have the effect of a "mono-molecular blade" if the cutting edge was actually a Warp field generated by the Waaagh!, whereas a Space Marine's combat knife is most definitely not truly mono-molecular.

Even then, it still shouldn't be able to flawlessly chop through metal like a power sword or Ork Choppa simply because it's stupidly sharp. There's a point where the metal its composed of would have to be so stupidly dense that even an Astartes shouldn't be able to wield it.

Fictional metals have always confused me, since it's not possible for us to not know of some magical element not on the periodic table- we would have made it already. Now special ceramic-metal compounds I could see, but there's a point when your magical metal just makes no sense.

Although, I suppose GW's magical metals are still better than something like Marvel. Vibranium is simply stupid.

Bocatt, I don't think you understand what people are saying or how the "logic" works.

For one - monomolecular frisbee discs wouldn't have high strength values. They contribute negligible force to the recipient. They WOULD have good AP values since they slice, cut, etc. through things. It's like comparing an arrow to a hammer. Arrow will pierce, but not impart as much force as a hammer blow.

Two - Material properties go beyond "how sharp". The reason I chose the DU sabot argument was that one of the most popular properties of depleted uranium in an anti-material platform is that the material is self-sharpening.

Imagine a shuriken that continues to hone its edge as it bits through a material. Suddenly, a bit scarier. Get a good enough spin on them, and it'd be more akin to getting hit by a buzz saw than a sharp plate.

Rending on an Assault Cannon represents it firing at such a high rate of fire that it cuts through armour.

Shuriken Catapults fire at a very fast rate as well.

Also, the wargear book says that one (a single) shuriken fired can punch through several inches of plasteel or metal armour (i.e. Power Armour).

 bocatt wrote:
If you've bought a knife, you'd know that the metal used in it's making does not determine it's sharpness. It's the width of the edge. That's why a knife sharpener, which narrows the edge, makes knives sharper. If it was the metal that mattered, I'd just buy a titanium or whatever the sharpest metal knife was and be done, but that's not how it works. A knife blunts with use, making a flatter and wider edge to cut with. The grade of the metal, iron, steel, whatever, only dictates how durable the knife is and how long it will hold it's edge before needing to be sharpened again.

So no, material used in it's making does not effect it's sharpness. A piece of wraithbone, with a monomolecular edge (although much less durable) is just as sharp as the monomolecular teeth of a Space Marine chainsword. So too would a monomolecular piece of paper shear through power armor. It would be incredibly unwieldy and easily torn lengthwise but the exaggeration is accurate.

So why are these two weapons (read: almost every bladed weapon ever described by GW or BL fluff writers) the same? Do they really just lack the imagination to come up with another reason or description of the weapon's sharpness? I doubt it. Should they change it so that some weapons have a regular edge and only cut through cultist armor while super advanced Eldar trickery bone weapons can cut through Space Marine armor with enough skill? In fluff and on the tabletop? I think so.

By that logic, I should be able to butcher a calf with a thin piece of plastic. Width is not the only factor when it comes to cutting.

In reality, no, but in a world where we assume that every melee weapon is durable enough to continue being swung throughout the battle without wear or tear or breaking, and every ranged weapon can continue firing barrage after barrage of bullets or shells, the material used in it's creation is not called into question. What determines it's effectiveness is how much damage it can inflict. Using the earlier example of a hammer and a frisbee disc. The power maul grants increased strength but worse AP than it's power fielded brethren. While the shuriken weapon only has the incomprehensibly high velocity with which it is shot to give is strength, as the weight is negligible, but, being a sharp object, it better penetrates armor.

Now what I'm saying is that regular blunt CCWs (like chainswords, combat blades, random hammers and swords used by cultists), should be different on the tabletop, or the fluff should better explain the difference between regular ccws and frisbee discs of death. Because currently, they are all the same level of impossible sharpness. But represented differently.

explain the difference between regular ccws and frisbee discs of death

Explain space elves, daemons, and warmongering fungus.

To be honest, this thread is full to bursting of possible logical reasons for what is a fictional object, not one of which you've accepted because they don't fit your idea of how such a device should work (not 'does work', since they don't exist, but 'should work').

What's happening now is that you're searching for a logical reason that you can accept fits a nonexistant, fictional object, the background of which doesn't go beyond "it's really sharp".

There is a certain point where we have to accept that this is an entire fictional universe filled with fictional things, a lot of which are highly illogical, vaguely explained (if at all), and done so usually with 1% logic and 99% technobabble.

I think we've reached that point here.

Except space elves, daemons, and warmongering fungi are all adequately explained in the fluff. This is similar to fluff consistently saying that bolt shells weigh eighty kilotons and have a muzzle velocity of two thousand metres per second.

Also, the "Strength" statistic is ambiguous, as it also vaguely relates to how damaging it is to a body in general, especially as Strength is the "ability to cause Wounds" statistic. Consideration, of course, must be given to vehicle armour and the like, but that's getting into the territory of Fleshbane and Instant Death.

Next step: monoatomic edges.

 bocatt wrote:
If you've bought a knife, you'd know that the metal used in it's making does not determine it's sharpness. It's the width of the edge. That's why a knife sharpener, which narrows the edge, makes knives sharper. If it was the metal that mattered, I'd just buy a titanium or whatever the sharpest metal knife was and be done, but that's not how it works. A knife blunts with use, making a flatter and wider edge to cut with. The grade of the metal, iron, steel, whatever, only dictates how durable the knife is and how long it will hold it's edge before needing to be sharpened again.

So no, material used in it's making does not effect it's sharpness. A piece of wraithbone, with a monomolecular edge (although much less durable) is just as sharp as the monomolecular teeth of a Space Marine chainsword. So too would a monomolecular piece of paper shear through power armor. It would be incredibly unwieldy and easily torn lengthwise but the exaggeration is accurate.

So why are these two weapons (read: almost every bladed weapon ever described by GW or BL fluff writers) the same? Do they really just lack the imagination to come up with another reason or description of the weapon's sharpness? I doubt it. Should they change it so that some weapons have a regular edge and only cut through cultist armor while super advanced Eldar trickery bone weapons can cut through Space Marine armor with enough skill? In fluff and on the tabletop? I think so.

Incorrect. The material a knife is made from greatly impacts how sharp its edge can be. This is why you will hear people talk about the quality of a blade "holding an edge" or "taking an edge"... these are expressions for how sharp a blade can be made, and for how long it will maintain that sharpness through use. Steel is better than iron which is better than bronze which is better than copper.

The rest of your statement there... doesn't apply because you obviously don't understand metallurgy.

And here I was thinking this would just be a request to stop using one word to describe everything. A chainsword doesn't need to be "monomolecular" to cut through something. Leave the ultra thin and sharp blades to the Space Pansies. Monomolecular sounds too precise to fit with the brute force approach of the Imperium.