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.

I rather liked the description of Space Marine vs insurgents in the Horus Rising novel of the Horus Heresy series where Kyril Sindermann visits the aftermath of the battle of the Whisperheads and finds the insurgents liberally smeared over every surface of their hideout. And the Luna Wolves are no World Eaters...

Well, the world eaters deliberatly do that.

Luna Wolves can't help it if bolters are doing the job for them.

I believe that number comes from supporting fire and machine guns...

I just had a thought about the holy Bolter and its range scale, if the average sniper weapon in 40K has a 48' range and is the designated long arm for most armies. We can get a pretty good idea of the effectiveness of a Bolter, having half that range. Of course this assumes that your averge futuristic sniper weapon will have at least the same range as a contemporary. This being around 2000 meters, giving your bolter an effective against anything at 1000 meter range. Off the top of my head i cant think of a single weapon thats one shot one kill effective at that range, that is also man portable. This also gives us an insight into how good a shot marines are at these ranges as well.
Just an observation and Im not married to it.

Indeed, one must assume that the standard 4x6 table is in actuality somewhere in the range of a 1 by 2/3 of a mile in dimensions.

the distances used are Abstract.


OR

the so called "Sniper" rifles used are really just guns with scopes and not dedicated sniping weapons.

the Vindicare Assassin is the closest the game gets to an actual Sniper. real snipers can pick out individuals from large groups. 40k snipers can't.

Grey Templar wrote:Indeed, one must assume that the standard 4x6 table is in actuality somewhere in the range of a 1 by 2/3 of a mile in dimensions.

the distances used are Abstract.


OR

the so called "Sniper" rifles used are really just guns with scopes and not dedicated sniping weapons.

the Vindicare Assassin is the closest the game gets to an actual Sniper. real snipers can pick out individuals from large groups. 40k snipers can't.

Yeah the scales in the game are a little muddy when it comes to accurate. I would like to know how much distance an inch translates too.
Id also like to know why the boards are measured in Feet and inchs which the model bases are in Metric?

The distances are an abstract measurement in every way. Strength is abstract, Toughness is abstract, Armor is abstract, AV is abstract, Penetration is abstract, and so on.

A Marine inside of power armor is the same strength as a scout outside of power armor. Same with a human in or out of power armor. This despite the fact that both kinds of power armor greatly enhance the strength of the user (a human in power armor was shown to use a single hand to easily flip cars over onto a genestealer and crush it with them in the Cain series).

That's because it's a game, not a simulation.

2cm is almost equivilant to 1 inch. as long as you are consistant with which system you use then there is no problem.


if we take the infantry models as standards then 1 inch(the approximate height of a Guardsmen model) is 6 feet.

a 4x6 table is then 288 feet by 432 feet. meaning a game table is 124,416 square feet of space(+ any verticle space)


also, it is known that no 40k tank is to scale with the models. Rhinos are the size of LRs, LRs are the size of Baneblades, Bandeblades are the size of a Jumbo box of frosted flakes.

Warhound titans are, oddly enough, to scale(depending on the source used) although Warhounds do vary in size.

Melissia wrote:The distances are an abstract measurement in every way. Strength is abstract, Toughness is abstract, Armor is abstract, AV is abstract, Penetration is abstract, and so on.

A Marine inside of power armor is the same strength as a scout outside of power armor. Same with a human in or out of power armor. This despite the fact that both kinds of power armor greatly enhance the strength of the user (a human in power armor was shown to use a single hand to easily flip cars over onto a genestealer and crush it with them in the Cain series).

I know its abstract and for ,many good reasons involving game balance and ease of play.
but thank you anyway. I would just like the broad stroke of the distance values is all. 1" is roughly 30' sort kind of guess. Which kinda fits into the Sniper/ Bolter range comparison.

No, it's far more abstract than that.

It's more like: 12"-24" would be a couple thousand meters. Meanwhile 6-12" would be a few hundred. And 0-6" would be the range you'd expect for a bayonet charge to take place. And yet even that doesn't entirely make sense when you consider movement rules, because it is extremely abstract.

Melissia wrote:No, it's far more abstract than that.

It's more like: 12"-24" would be a couple thousand meters. Meanwhile 6-12" would be a few hundred. And 0-6" would be the range you'd expect for a bayonet charge to take place. And yet even that doesn't entirely make sense when you consider movement rules, because it is extremely abstract.

good point. but still it would be nice to have a one page thing in the back of a White Dwarf or even the new rules for each codex as part of the fluff saying what the weapon range is.
Cause with the melee and man portable weapon ranges in an abstract frame that makes sense, we see the Artillery pieces and then the whole thing goes on its ear again.

It would, but that would be too easy.

You can use Dark Heresy rules, but even then those rules are not perfectly representative of the fluff because they're adapted to the needs of a roleplaying game.

Why Bolters? Because they're Grimdark. Nevermind the fact that we already have weapons that operate similarly to Bolters, and they're garbage.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Why Bolters? Because they're Grimdark. Nevermind the fact that we already have weapons that operate similarly to Bolters, and they're garbage.

I disagree, since we have no weapons that will fire reliably under water or in the vacuum of space. Closest analogue we have to a Bolter is a Kalashnikov, and the bolter is likely not as good as a Kalashnikov cause you can leave your AK in the mud for a season,tie knots in your boot lace, dip the lace in motor oil. Drag the greasey lace through the muzzle and breach and its good to go. A bolter requires constant maintenance.
In any case its moot the bolter sadly does not exsist.
But the Kalashnikov does. I cant wait to get one.

Jay-Man McDougall wrote:Closest analogue we have to a Bolter is a Kalashnikov

Not even close. The Avtomat Kalashnikova 47 is more equivalent to a lascarbine or autocarbine.

I believe the point was made earlier that bolters are not anywhere close to AKs.
Bolters require alot of maintenence and cleaning and fire 20mm rockets.
AKs work almost everywhere (space and water not included) and fire solid rounds.
The resemblance between the two is only slightly cosmetic.

There is no weapon on earth today that can do anything that the bolter can do.
I said the closest analogue, in terms of mission profile, not performance or maintenance.
And yes i agree completely that the kalshnikov is much closer in performance and maintenance to a lascarbine or other laser rifle.
My mistake i did not specify mission profile ahead of analogue.
Other wise there is absolutely no comparison.

Jay-Man McDougall wrote:I said the closest analogue, in terms of mission profile, not performance or maintenance.

Yes, and you are wrong.

An AK47 uses smaller munitions and has less effect than the caseless autocarbine-- the AK is an assault rifle, not a battle rifle-- assault rifles were developed from automatic carbines as a place between an SMG and a battle rifle, and indeed the first assault rifle (Sturmgewehr 44) was referred to as "Maschinenkarabiner" in developement, meaning "machine-carbine" similar to "machine pistol" for smaller automatic weapons. An autocarbine is a shorter-ranged version of an autogun. An autogun is equivalent to a lasgun in tabletop stats.

An AK47 would probably have R18", S3 AP-, Assault 2 as its statline at most. Its "mission profile" would be the same as an autocarbine.

If we did have something similar to the boltgun in "mission profile", it would be the automatic grenade launcher people like to mention so much. It's not a true bolt weapon, but it is the closest in purpose and effect to a bolter (it is still, however, inferior).

Melissia wrote:

Jay-Man McDougall wrote:I said the closest analogue, in terms of mission profile, not performance or maintenance.

Yes, and you are wrong.

An AK47 uses smaller munitions and has less effect than the caseless autocarbine-- the AK is an assault rifle, not a battle rifle-- assault rifles were developed from automatic carbines as a place between an SMG and a battle rifle, and indeed the first assault rifle (Sturmgewehr 44) was referred to as "Maschinenkarabiner" in developement, meaning "machine-carbine" similar to "machine pistol" for smaller automatic weapons. An autocarbine is a shorter-ranged version of an autogun. An autogun is equivalent to a lasgun in tabletop stats.

An AK47 would probably have R18", S3 AP-, Assault 2 as its statline at most.

If we did have something similar to the boltgun in "mission profile", it would be the automatic grenade launcher people like to mention so much. It's not a true bolt weapon, but it is the closest in purpose and effect to a bolter (it is still, however, inferior).

Im fully aware that the Kalashnikov is not really an battle rifle, battle rifles use higher caliber munitions. Whatever. If my view of the comparison offended you. I appologise.
I would have made the AK an Autofire weapon since its crap beyond 100 meters on full auto but assault works just as well. The Kalshnikov easily accepts a bayonette. Id like to see that in play actually. Looks cool
As for the Bolter stacking up against the M-32 grenade launcher
I have to agree with that. The new rounds you can load into the M-32 make the it closer to the Bolter. With all the specialized munitions available for both the bolter and the M-32, i can easily see the comparison. but again way off. The M-32 isnt meant to be used for direct fire, though it can( they do make some really nasty direct fire shells for it.( Flechettes, and Fin Stabilized slugs for example.) . It a squad support weapon, for up close indirect fire. I must say however. I am not talking down to you or trying to get the last word in. I like this discussion and you are exciting to talk to about this, I appreciate your view and would like to hear more of your views. I agree with all your points, and admit my own short coming in my comparison.

No, it isn't MEANT to be used as direct fire, but it is the closest equivalent. Because it's only used against humans, we don't use it the way the Imperium would.

Bolters used against humans are complete overkill. Like using a light anti-tank RPG against a human, only it's rapid fire.

the closest thing we have to a Bolter weapon is an automatic Grenade launcher which is similer to a Heavy bolter, but is still far away from the bolter's level of tech.

if we ever get .75mm handheld automatic Rocket propelled Grenade launchers then we will have bolters.

Melissia wrote:No, it isn't MEANT to be used as direct fire, but it is the closest equivalent. Because it's only used against humans, we don't use it the way the Imperium would.

Bolters used against humans are complete overkill. Like using a light anti-tank RPG against a human, only it's rapid fire.

Did you see that Future weapons ep. where they unveiled the 'star streak' ? Cause after having to look for the name of the above grenade launcher. I remembered that.
It fires micro rockets very similar in size to bolter munitions in the third stage of launch. They are bigger and need a proper missile to get them up to speed, but the micro rockets are right up the Marines alley.
Heres the link

http://military.discovery.com/videos/futureweapons-season-one/

check it out let me know what you think please?

Lol yes a Bolter against a human is a mexican recipie for destruction ( ie chunky salsa) and way over kill

the closest thing we have to a Bolter weapon is an automatic Grenade launcher which is similer to a Heavy bolter, but is still far away from the bolter's level of tech.

if we ever get .75mm handheld automatic Rocket propelled Grenade launchers then we will have bolters.

Awww damn i just watched that link, it dosnt show the micro rockets fire off the second stage rocket. Sorry about that.

The closest thing we have to a bolter is the Gyrojet family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

Yeah, they suck. They're inaccurate and since the speed actually *increases* with range until you hit the sweet spot, they're worthless for CQB. I don't see why some of you seem to think that Grimdarkness alone can make this POS viable. The concept is flawed at the most basic level, probably because "Bolters" were thought up by English geeks, not trigger pullers and engineers. The design itself, we've been capable of replicating since the 50's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpOcdyxvUvc&feature=related

Not realy. Gyrojet weapons are purely rocket weaponry, completely caseless and faulty (indeed, with some types of gyrojet ammunition you can put your finger at the end of the barrel and prevent the rocket from leaving).

Bolters have several notable differences from Gyrojet weapons:

1: Bolters are not caseless (indeed, spent bolt shell casings are considered a good luck charm in the Imperium)

2: Bolters have strong(er) recoil. How strong this is varies from source to source (and indeed it varies between bolter patterns), but it is at least equivalent to a normal weapon, and for Astartes/Sororitas (the Godwyn and Godwyn-De'az patterns) bolters it's enough that a human using it would risk injury outside of power armor.

3: Bolters are deadly at both short and long range. This is well-established, especially for bolt pistols.


Given these three, and the information in the rest of his thread, I would say a reasonable deduction would be that (and I am repeating myself here) bolters are a multi-stage weapon, firing first as a traditional round (ala bullet or shotgun slug) and then an instant later-- after the shell leaves the barrel-- beginning to burn its rocket propellant.

Grey Templar wrote:actually, the Gyrostabilization principal is quite sound. accuracy is equal to normal rounds and lethal range is far greater.

similer to when a football is thrown, the spin the thrower puts on it adds stability and therefor accuracy.

modern bullets use Rifiling to put a Gyrostabilisation spin on rounds. add in a small rocket and you are gold.


it might lose accuracy beyond 1 mile, but no SMG is accurate or effective at that range. bolters would be effective if not accurate.



the Bolter, unlike the lasgun, is actually an extreamly plausable weapons system given todays technology as well as real world Physics.

it would be fairly easy to manufacture a .75 caliber(that is frakkin HUGE) round that is both rocket propelled as well as exploding. it they can put a Tazer inside a shotgun shell, they can make bullets explode and be Rocket propelled.

the gun itself? well, it is just a .75 cal gun.

There have historically been and still are a number of rocket propelled and rocket assisted projectiles ranging from bullet size up to large artillery (16-inch).

They all suffer from lower accuracy than conventional bullets due various factors.

Pure rocket propelled rounds can be spun by rifling in the barrel or by the rocket jet. However the engineering tolerance of such rounds makes them less accurate than normal rounds.

Rounds consisting of a conventional charge plus a rocket suffer from two disadvantages. 1. The rocket tends to exaggerate any post barrel flight deviation. 2. They deviate more than normal rounds because their effective density is lower. This also affects penetration compared to a conventional projectile.

Pure rockets are used when low recoil is important, which also enable a high rate of fire from multiple tubes. (Katyusha.)
They also pack more explosive in a given weight than a shell.

Rocket assisted rounds are longer ranged than normal artillery, but need terminal guidance to make up for the drop in accuracy. Once you're doing that, it starts to become as good to use a guided missile or air-dropped bomb.

The bolter is a plausible weapon in the sense that modern engineering could easily build it. The question therefore is why it hasn't been built.

The answer is that we already have equal or better weapons using less complex technology for every purpose for which you might want a bolter. Things like the 50-cal machine gun and the 40mm auto grenade launcher.

Melissia wrote:Not realy. Gyrojet weapons are purely rocket weaponry, completely caseless and faulty (indeed, with some types of gyrojet ammunition you can put your finger at the end of the barrel and prevent the rocket from leaving).

Bolters have several notable differences from Gyrojet weapons:

1: Bolters are not caseless (indeed, spent bolt shell casings are considered a good luck charm in the Imperium)

2: Bolters have strong(er) recoil. How strong this is varies from source to source (and indeed it varies between bolter patterns), but it is at least equivalent to a normal weapon, and for Astartes/Sororitas (the Godwyn and Godwyn-De'az patterns) bolters it's enough that a human using it would risk injury outside of power armor.

3: Bolters are deadly at both short and long range. This is well-established, especially for bolt pistols.


Given these three, and the information in the rest of his thread, I would say a reasonable deduction would be that (and I am repeating myself here) bolters are a multi-stage weapon, firing first as a traditional round (ala bullet or shotgun slug) and then an instant later-- after the shell leaves the barrel-- beginning to burn its rocket propellant.

I think i remember a line in one of the Smurf novels where Uriel Ventress was in CQ with a Chaos Marine and he was worried about the shot not hurting the Marine because the bolter munition wasnt armed at close range. I could be misremembering that though. So it is by no means any kind of fact.

He was worried because he knew that, while bolters are deadly at short range, they do increase in power with range. so he knew that at short range it would be highly unlikely to penetrate the marines armor.

at 100 feet prehaps, but at point blank the initial charge wouldn't do much.


@ Killcrazy. yes, Rocket assisted bullets aren't as accurate as conventional rounds. at least right now. with enough research they could become as accurate. at least bolters are in the "Highly plausible" catagory as far as Sci-fi weapons go. no other Sci-fi story i have read/seen has had weapons as realistic as 40k does. i mean, most of their Tanks still run on fossil fuels.