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.

Maybe it uses something different from what we use as an initial propellant maybe it uses "space gun powder" or just something more powerful than our gun powder.

Like from mass effect?

purplefood wrote:Maybe it uses something different from what we use as an initial propellant maybe it uses "space gun powder" or just something more powerful than our gun powder.

as I have said the initial charge is not the problem its the rocket fule which comprises most of the shell volume and even modern rockets would overcome the force of air drag. I can only imagine in the far future they also are smart enough to make "space Rocket Fule"

gendoikari87 wrote:none that said anything useful. and if you'll look up I did post two sources.

No you didn't.

Lexicanum is not itself a direct source, it is a fan-made site and therefor contributed to by fans, not by GW itself.

The video is similarly a fan-made source.

Neither of them are canon.

Space marine codex and warhamer: Wargear ring any bells.

gendoikari87 wrote:

purplefood wrote:Maybe it uses something different from what we use as an initial propellant maybe it uses "space gun powder" or just something more powerful than our gun powder.

as I have said the initial charge is not the problem its the rocket fule which comprises most of the shell volume and even modern rockets would overcome the force of air drag. I can only imagine in the far future they also are smart enough to make "space Rocket Fule"

Well obviously they can maybe it's a slow burn but high output fuel... basically a miracle fuel.

You mentioned them, but never actually cited them. No quotations, no page numbers.

which proves you haven't eve been thoughully reading my posts. there is officially no point in continuing this debate

gendoikari87 wrote:which proves you haven't eve been thoughully reading my posts. there is officially no point in continuing this debate

Or you could quickly quote them and continue to have a nice friendly debate where we all reach a point that everyone is happy with?
Unlikely but everyone needs a dream...

Well obviously they can maybe it's a slow burn but high output fuel... basically a miracle fuel.

Then there wouldn't need to be a whole lot of rocket fuel. Just face it mellisas side is basically dead. using what ifs with no fluff backing whatso ever. She's stated sources that don't go into detail about either of our points and refused mine when I gave them. she's just crying because she's lost now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Page 97 space marines. Page 122 Rough trader 2005

no sources have explicitly stated either side but the anecdotal evidence leans to my side. Mellssa thinks just becuase theyre deadly at short range that means they can't be more so at long, and she's wrong.

Maybe the bolts are supposed to be very long range and that needs lots of fuel.
And also maybe when it says missiles it means just projectiles and not actually missiles.(in relation to you point on page 97 of the SM codex)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahh well yeah they could be more deadly at long range depending on material compostion, fuel and weight. It would also depend on atmosphere (for the air resistance) so it would change from planet to planet.

... by definition, an arrow is a missile.

Melissia wrote:... by definition, an arrow is a missile.

last Time I check they were NOT self propelled however.

And atmosphere won't matter much were talking in order for the rocket to JUST counteract air drag you'd have to be firing the bolt in an atmosphere as thick as water. at already incredibly high speeds.

Who doesn't use self-propelled arrows anymore? Seriously, what do you think this is, the Middle Ages?!

Rogue Trader (not Rough Trader), the old first edition isn't canon anymore. Now, if it was Rogue Trader, the RPG, then yes.

Yes, they're self-propelled. Tell us something we don't already know. Noone except noone is disputing that they're self-propelled. Try actually proving your point, because simply saying they're self-propelled doesn't. Where, exactly, does it say that they are weaker at close range than at long range?

yeah the 2009 game.

where does it say they're stronger at close ranges. hmm. tell me. proove your point. as I have said to this brick wall a thousand times none of the fluffs go into that much detail.

If you'd actually read my posts, you'd realize I said they're at equal strength at short, medium, and long range (Not that they are stronger at short range). Which is supported by EVERY single GW fluff and game source printed since third edition at least (and even than only because I'm too lazy to go back and read the second edition and rogue trader again). 3rd, 4th, and 5th tabletop editions, all of the roleplaying games, all of the videogames (even DoW2's damage increase at close range is due to accuracy rather than being an inherent part of the weapon-- all suppression weapons have increased damage at short range), and the Black Library books too. They don't talk about a weakness bolters have at close range BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Meanwhile your position is supported by no official source. Not a single one. And I defy you to prove otherwise.

Okay.
Lets all calm down shall we.
Take a deep breathe, have a cup of tea and then carry on.
Note: Deep breathe is optional.

you can't use the games rules as proofs, they are simplified to make things easier even the DOW games.

gendoikari87 wrote:you can't use the games rules as proofs, they are simplified to make things easier even the DOW games.

Roleplaying games aren't simplified. Dark Heresy has rules for extreme long range, jamming, reloading, cleaning one's weapon in combat, various quality weapons, thrown hand grenades doing actual damage, rules for using psychic powers to cause someone's eye to twitch, rules for shotguns and similar weapons having a different effect than normal weapons, and so on and so forth. Roleplaying games are exactly the kind of game where this kind of information is used, but bolt weapons do not have greater effectiveness at long range than short range (like the reverse of meltaguns and shotguns, amongst other things).

The fact that not a single source of information supports your argument out of EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FLUFF IN THE SETTING says more than enough about the quality of the argument. Your argument has as much merit as the claim that the smurfette is married to Marneus Calgar. What, there's nothing saying she isn't.

I continue to defy you to provide proof.

You continue to fail in this endeavor.

Until you stop failing to produce proof, there is nothing more that can be said on this argument.

Then why don't you state what they DO say. go ahead I bet they say nothing about it either way. and what's more you have yet to show where these game systems show the range damages of OTHER weapons.

I'm waiting.

Do you have your evidence yet, or are you going to continue trying to change the subject because you have none?

Melissia wrote:I'm waiting.

Do you have your evidence yet, or are you going to continue trying to change the subject because you have none?

Let me say this and get it into your head. YOU HAVE NOT POINT BASED ON GAME SYSTEMS. More than that, you have no other cases where ranged effectiveness is discussed. THEREFORE it's not gone into. GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD. the only way we can derive information from it is from the way they work. I have proven my point time and time again, and the little fluff that does go into any detail supports my theory. Take a break clear your head and go back and read between the lines of your sources you will find it there. GOOD FREAKING NIGHT!

I see that you continue to avoid providing evidence for your position . Very well then, toodles.

ROuge Trader 121- 122 READ IT Warhamer: wargear from 2005 has it as well in more detail.

Can either of you actually tell me what points you're arguing in 2 lines?
Because i'm really confused.

purplefood wrote:Can either of you actually tell me what points you're arguing in 2 lines?
Because i'm really confused.

Bolts increase in kinetic energy the farther they go because they accelerate due to being a rocket.

Furthermore they don't just overcome air resistance because A) that'd be stupid and B) even modern small rockets would do more than overcome the air resistance.

Thridly all of mellissas sources omit anything about range whatso ever on al weapons as it's supposed to be a no brainer, and they don't want to go that much into detail. She's arguing a non point.

As an objects speed increases so does the amount of air resistance it faces also increase.

Terminal velocity is generally only applied where the force of gravity is the only major factor acting upon the body. So for example a stone thrown from an airplane would have a terminal velocity where the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to wind resistance. In an instance where you have a powered projectile for example the airplane mentioned in my previous example. The terminal velocity of the body in the horizontal direction is shown as the point where the acceleration due to the projectiles power source minus the amount of acceleration required to overcome the force of gravity in the horizontal direction is equal to the acceleration due to wind resistance. Terminal velocityies meaning changes upon the definaition of the system and its peramaters.

So if we go back and look at a rocket useing all of the concepts that I have detailed in the above post, we see the following peices.

The body is considered the projectile itself.
During its flight the body is acted upon by three forces.
1 - An acceleration applied to the body via its own propellant
2- The force of gravity in the vertical direction
3 - An acceleration due to wind resistance in the opposite direction of Force 1

Now, Force 1 must overcome 2 forces, when it reaches the point where the sum of the equation is equal to 0 then the body can be said to have reached its Terminal Velocity.

Now to correct some things that have been said in previous posts. Ther Terminal Velocity of a system is not the point at which Wind Resistance can not be overcome by any amount of force, it is the point at which Wind Resistance can not be overcome by any amount of force avalible to the system.

Now for some additional clarification to other things.

- Rockets do not nessacarily increase acceleration they can also be used to maintain velocity. Effectivly rendering the acceleration of a system 0.

I'm seeing a mild Gailbraithean break down in potential here......

But in all honesty, Melissia's in the right here. The tabeltop game and DoW not having bolters deal higher damage is something I can understand. Who wants to have to deal with all those extra complications while trying to play a game? But the fact that the RPGs do not include such a mechanism is pretty damning. RPGs are meant to come as close to real world as they can. Moreover, it doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective either.

If bolters really did more and more damage as range increased, wouldn't Space Marine tactics and the Index Astartes take note of this fact? Wouldn't Assault Marines and other close combat specialists be avoided in favor of taking advantage of this capability? Quite clearly, close quarters combat remains a key part of Space Marine doctrine, with equal emphasis given to ranged combat. If bolters damage increased with range, no doubt we would see a greater emphasis on Devastators, and Sternguard Marines.

Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen. Just because modern materials science and ballistics suggests one thing, there's no reason why there can't be some kind of strange technology that allows the weapon to defy the modern prediction, and instead act the way it does in the fluff.

ChrisWWII wrote:Finally, we have to note that we don't know everything about 41st millenium technology, and our analysis here only goes so far. If the fluff says something works like X, then it works like X regardless of what we think SHOULD happen. Just because modern materials science and ballistics suggests one thing, there's no reason why there can't be some kind of strange technology that allows the weapon to defy the modern prediction, and instead act the way it does in the fluff.

QFT - Many thousands years will pass between now and then.

Ask an old timer if they could have ever imagened a computer in every house. Technology changes in wierd ways. 50 years ago people thought we'd all have flying cars. Instead we have computers and LCD TV's. Who knows what 38,000 years will bring.