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.
gendoikari87 wrote:See that green stuff, that's propellant, once it's gone you have just the shell of the casing left.
[snip]
Definition of a gyrojet, in the article if further explains that the charge is just enough to get the round out of the barrel before the main rocket is ignited.
[snip]
That my friend would be a german MG3, heavy stubbers take all forms of machine guns and only the IG standard ones Resemble the MH2 Ma duce, but they only resemble them they aren't .50, and in fact they actually look more like 30cal machine guns, what you would call medium machine guns, they are closer to a true machine gun like the anti infantry emplacements of wwII. Rather than the .50cal beast.
1: Which does not tell us anything about the weight, because the propellant is not any propellant we use today, nor do we know what the weight of the casing and etc itself is. What we DO know, however, is that bolt pistols can destroy almost any vehicle in 40k, using your definition of "destroy" from your argument about Pulse Rifles.
2: That they have superficial similarities is irrelevant. Bolt weapons are not ineffective at close range. They never have been. You have yet to provide any source for this. Furthermore, you have yet to cite your source for that quote.
3: I cite Imperial Armour (the first book, unless I'm mistaken) as my source for the caliber of Heavy Stubbers in tabletop, where it specifically compares them to modern heavy machine guns. Not medium machine guns. You have yet to cite a source stating that they are like medium machine guns. Just because it might look similar does not mean that it IS similar.
All this adds up to, to bring this back on topic, the fact that Rhinos do not have "paper thin armor". The 7.62x51mm NATO round is equivalent to a lasgun shot, not a bolter shot or better and could not even hope to penetrate a Rhino's armor, front, side, OR rear. Tau Pulse Rifles are, for anti-infantry purposes, far too much firepower for the job. Tau do believe in overwhelming firepower.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/10/17 23:48:16
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I would say it stems from the "Styling" of each army. Bear with me here, I am going to make some points that some of you don't agree with.
Imperial Guard are styled after the Russian army (Death Korp and Catachan not withstanding). They use a lot of people, with weak guns, and they tend to be tank heavy (heavy meaning both weight and numbers). The Chimera is styled after the Russian BTR of the 1950's/60's. These were actually some of the best APCs in the world, for their time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-70 Compare that to the Chimera. They are almost identical (ignore the wheels vs. tracks)
The Space Marines are styled after the American army. They are a (relatively) specialized army, and tend to favor greater firepower/technology vs. numbers. The Rhino is styled after the American M-113.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-113 Compare that to the Rhino. Again, they are very similar (these ones are even closer than the BTR/Chimera. I would go so far as to say the Rhino IS the M-113).
So for modelling purposes, the respective vehicles make sense. I know this has nothing to do with game mechanics, but it would explain why GW would choose to model them differently.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/18 00:30:42
Err, no? Space Marines are most assuredly not modeled after any part of the American army. Explain where you get that idea?
ALL "modern" armies-- IE, those from first world countries-- tend to favor firepower/technology over numbers.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
You have to think in the context of the 1980's (I.E. when 40k started). It was more defined back then.
Though I do agree, the trend is toward more technology over numbers.
I remember in Redemption Corps they had a small chimera with a twin linked assault cannon and a heavy stubber pintle mounted. It also had thicker armor on the sides. And a smaller transport capacity. Was air dropped from a heavy valk variant in pairs.. I think the guard use more the just the chimera, and each regiment uses something a little different.
*edit to correct engrish *
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/18 00:50:30
40k: IG "The Poli-Aima 1st" ~3500pts (and various allies) KHADOR X-Wing (Empire Strong)
Ouze wrote: I can't wait to buy one of these, open the box, peek at the sprues, and then put it back in the box and store it unpainted for years.
PraetorDave wrote:I would say it stems from the "Styling" of each army. Bear with me here, I am going to make some points that some of you don't agree with.
Imperial Guard are styled after the Russian army (Death Korp and Catachan not withstanding). They use a lot of people, with weak guns, and they tend to be tank heavy (heavy meaning both weight and numbers). The Chimera is styled after the Russian BTR of the 1950's/60's. These were actually some of the best APCs in the world, for their time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-70 Compare that to the Chimera. They are almost identical (ignore the wheels vs. tracks)
The Space Marines are styled after the American army. They are a (relatively) specialized army, and tend to favor greater firepower/technology vs. numbers. The Rhino is styled after the American M-113.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-113 Compare that to the Rhino. Again, they are very similar (these ones are even closer than the BTR/Chimera. I would go so far as to say the Rhino IS the M-113).
So for modelling purposes, the respective vehicles make sense. I know this has nothing to do with game mechanics, but it would explain why GW would choose to model them differently.
yeah the BRT's even had some very nice firepower on them rivaling that of a small tanks gun. The M-113 on the other hand was kind of a pill box, but it was effective for what it was. Both have become iconic symbols of both armies for a reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Err, no? Space Marines are most assuredly not modeled after any part of the American army. Explain where you get that idea?
ALL "modern" armies-- IE, those from first world countries-- tend to favor firepower/technology over numbers.
Space marines are highly american. High tech favoring survivability over expendability. That's been americas montra in warfare for the last sixty years. Probably more. Russia has always been a rugged dependability by cheap easily manufactured weapons that can be spammed. Granted some of the russians stuff was superior to our own and more heavily mass produced. Untill about the 1970's/80's when we started to really integrate computer tech into weapons design. The russians only recently have done so. The New T90 and T80U Might be able to take the abrams in a fight but the abrams is a 30 year old design and is still more accurate on the move and faster. The new russian tanks just kind of rely on good reactive armor, active protection systems, and FREAKING GUIDED MISSILES THEY FIRE OUT THE MAIN GUN! And yet the abrams is still more high tech.... that is untill the T-12 gets mass produced if it ever comes to fruiition... then god help us all, the russians will reclaim the title of kind of tank makers.
1: Which does not tell us anything about the weight, because the propellant is not any propellant we use today, nor do we know what the weight of the casing and etc itself is. What we DO know, however, is that bolt pistols can destroy almost any vehicle in 40k, using your definition of "destroy" from your argument about Pulse Rifles.
2: That they have superficial similarities is irrelevant. Bolt weapons are not ineffective at close range. They never have been. You have yet to provide any source for this. Furthermore, you have yet to cite your source for that quote.
3: I cite Imperial Armour (the first book, unless I'm mistaken) as my source for the caliber of Heavy Stubbers in tabletop, where it specifically compares them to modern heavy machine guns. Not medium machine guns. You have yet to cite a source stating that they are like medium machine guns. Just because it might look similar does not mean that it IS similar.
1. No, your right it does tell us about the VOLUME, and unless they are made of lead and therefore already poor penetrators, They're still not going to be very heavy.
2. I refer you to this quote from Lexicannum
The bolter has two advantages over a conventional firearm. Firstly, the amount of propellant required for the first stage is relatively small. This means that with the standard .75 caliber (about 20mm), the recoil is negligible when compared to a conventional projectile weapon of equivalent caliber. Secondly, recoil is further reduced by the smoothbore design of the bolter. Because spin is imparted by the rocket engine after the bolt exits the barrel, there is no need for rifling. The counter to this, however, comes from the fact that bolts are less powerful at closer ranges, as they need time to accelerate to top speed.
3. Heavy machine guns count everything up from .30 and above a .308 is still a heavy machine gun if it's placed on a heavy mount like a maxim would be. At least in the guard the definition of heavy stubber seems to be that of any machine gun. from a .223 to a 12.7mm (modern def might be .50 cal but warhammer came around in the 80's)
And in the end none of this does anything to proove that the rhino doesn't have paper thin armor, it LITERALLY has to worry about almost any weapon in the game that's not a basic foot soldiers rifle, including anti infantry weapons. The only transport more vulnerable is the ork trukk. So yes it's paper thin and generally accepted as such.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2010/10/18 02:25:31
The Chimera resembles(very much so) an old Russian IFV(I don't remember which one); the rhino looks like Most APCs, but there is an english one that so closely looks like the new models it was turned into one in a publisity stunt by Relic games(or THQ, or one of those cumputer game companies that made the Dawn of war series)
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
Kommissar Kel wrote:The Chimera resembles(very much so) an old Russian IFV(I don't remember which one); the rhino looks like Most APCs, but there is an english one that so closely looks like the new models it was turned into one in a publisity stunt by Relic games(or THQ, or one of those cumputer game companies that made the Dawn of war series)
Like someone said it's the M113, or maybe the M75 seen here:
Length and dimension specs are more similar to the m75, weight however is not, the rhino is about 6 tons lighter. But you can remove stuff to make them lighter which leads me to believe it's a m75. Though I think the design for the new one is based on the M113 as it's been an iconic symbol of the american military for what seems like forever.
actually after looking up the specs on the M113 it actually fits the dimensions as well... but the front end looks more like it caame off of the m75.
Hey looky an old pattern chimera:
...
....and it's hunter killer missile
and the first valkyrie:
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2010/10/18 11:35:31
Aaah, yes, the Malyutka! Once you fired one of those babies straight through an APC (that is, we found parts of the Malyutka on the other side of the APC, which had a giant hole straight through it) you never go back!
1: ... unless it's made of a material unknown to modern science, you know, because they're 40,000 years into the future and all.
2: Lexicanum is not a source.
No roleplaying games (Inquisitor, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Ascension, Deathwatch) give a penalty for using bolt weapons at close range. No console/computer games (from Chaos Gate to Chaos Rising) give a penalty for using bolt weapons at close range. No tabletop armies, across the entire history of 40k, have given such a penalty, no codex has referenced this supposed weakness. Not a single BL book has referenced this supposed weakness.
That is because it does not exist. A fan video on youtube does not make for an official source.
3: The only reason anti-infantry weapons are so powerful in 40k is because in 40k, massive firepower is needed to kill enemy infantry. Using a modern rifle against an Ork would be like using an inferior version of a lasgun against the beast. Bolt weapons are complete and utter overkill against human beings. You'd need a heavy machinegun, .30 or .50 cal, just to bring an Ork down with the same reliability as you'd bring a human down with a rifle. And let's not start talking about Necrons or anything with powered armor.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/10/18 12:34:35
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:Rhinos hardly have paper thin armor. They're actually pretty well armored, but they're intended to be fast transports, rather than heavy duty ones. Rhinos, in the fluff, are more mobile than a Chimera, and better able to withstand hits on anything other than its front armor as well.
not paper thin armor, a heavy bolter can take out a rhino, hell the multilasers on the chimera can take out the rhino.
And yet a rhino has better side armor than a chimera. A marine with his popgun can take a chimera from the side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:There is no fluff reason the IG cannot take rhinos, rhinos are always described as being ubiquitious, common on all worlds and a standard imperial vehicle (except when GW has a new rhino kit to sell when they suddenly became rare artifacts marines would fight to death to reclaim even a wrecked rhino).
In fact the IG could take them in Rogue Trader and Epic, maybe 2nd edition too, I'd have to check.
The only reason they can't is branding and game balance.
If it helps I would suggest that the IG do use rhinos but mainly in a support/logistics role rather than on the front line. So you could make some cargo, communications or medical rhinos as your terrain.
You could take them in 3rd or 4th ed if I remember correctly. I think there was a doctrine they could take for it. Have to check.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/18 13:16:10
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Melissia wrote:1: ... unless it's made of a material unknown to modern science, you know, because they're 40,000 years into the future and all.
2: Lexicanum is not a source.
No roleplaying games (Inquisitor, Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Ascension, Deathwatch) give a penalty for using bolt weapons at close range. No console/computer games (from Chaos Gate to Chaos Rising) give a penalty for using bolt weapons at close range. No tabletop armies, across the entire history of 40k, have given such a penalty, no codex has referenced this supposed weakness. Not a single BL book has referenced this supposed weakness.
That is because it does not exist. A fan video on youtube does not make for an official source.
3: The only reason anti-infantry weapons are so powerful in 40k is because in 40k, massive firepower is needed to kill enemy infantry. Using a modern rifle against an Ork would be like using an inferior version of a lasgun against the beast. Bolt weapons are complete and utter overkill against human beings. You'd need a heavy machinegun, .30 or .50 cal, just to bring an Ork down with the same reliability as you'd bring a human down with a rifle. And let's not start talking about Necrons or anything with powered armor.
1. yeah and last time I checked all super materials are also really light. In the end though materials science puts a limit to what you can have for your density, and that means a bolter shell after all the propellant is used up is very light.
2. yeah because that would be a rediculous mechanic to try and implement, so they kept it simple. All the sources I've read state that bolter shells are more powerful at farthe ranges. Even the basic design principal should tell you they are more powerful at longer ranges if you think about it for more than a half second. I mean they have a rocket motor which gives them an ACCELERATION, which by the way is the change in velocity with respect to time, meaning they go faster as they fly along as opposed to a bullet that slows down.
3. Except that autoguns (assault rifles) are just as powerful in 40 as lasguns and possibly more so in every single piece of fluff, the only reason lasguns are used in favor of autoguns is because the logistics train to supply lasguns is near non existant, while theres a mile long train for autoguns.
With this I've said my peace I refuse to argue withsome one who has next to no scientific knowledge and refuses to think through the coversation and refuses to acknowledge scources when they haven't given any themselves.
Vargtass wrote:Aaah, yes, the Malyutka! Once you fired one of those babies straight through an APC (that is, we found parts of the Malyutka on the other side of the APC, which had a giant hole straight through it) you never go back!
When did you have the honor of firing one?
And yet a rhino has better side armor than a chimera. A marine with his popgun can take a chimera from the side.
and a heavy bolter can't do anything to it from the front. while a rhino can possibly still be immobilized. This is the difference in design philosophy or Philosopy of Use, the chimer has tin foil for side armor because it's going to have another one right next to it, while a rhino won't
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/18 14:37:52
Modquisition on. Here's the part where posters arguing about toy soldiers ratchet it down a notch and remember Dakka Rule #1 or a certain moderator gets his jollies suspending people.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I am only going to say a few more things to you melissa; I said looks Like, not anything else, I did not say it was the equivalent.
the youtube video is not from some fan(or at least the original footage, and built Rhino was not), it was a promotional stunt done by one of the game developers. They had on their website, a "making of" for awhile that included the stripping down, and rebuilding of the original APC.
Edit to delete rant from another discussion entirely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/18 17:47:22
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. Here's the part where posters arguing about toy soldiers ratchet it down a notch and remember Dakka Rule #1 or a certain moderator gets his jollies suspending people.
What, the mods LIKE hurting people? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
40k: IG "The Poli-Aima 1st" ~3500pts (and various allies) KHADOR X-Wing (Empire Strong)
Ouze wrote: I can't wait to buy one of these, open the box, peek at the sprues, and then put it back in the box and store it unpainted for years.
gendoikari87 wrote:2. yeah because that would be a rediculous mechanic to try and implement
No it wouldn't.
DoW2 uses the Essence Engine, which has modifiers for damage, accuracy, and armor penetration based off the range to target, what level of cover the target was in, which direction it hit the target from, and so on. These systems were left over from the previous version of Essence Engine used in Company of Heroes, which made heavy use of those rules to make a varied and interesting metagame. Implementing this fluff concept, if indeed it were a fluff concept instead of a fan concept, could have been done simply as a part of creating the armies in question.
Dark Heresy has similar range modifiers for accuracy, and being a roleplaying game it is far more detailed than other games about the minutia of weapons and other things with which each individual character must interact. There are rules for cleaning and oiling one's weapon, for example. There's bonuses for half range on some weapons, special rules could easily give a penalty for half range as well, or even just a penalty for point blank range (actually, bolt weapons get a bonus for point blank range like most weapons).
Have you read any OFFICIAL source stating that bolt pistols are ineffective at close range? Not fan sources, or Lexicanum, or essays written on a forum. Actual official GW sources. If so, please feel free to cite your source. That video provided was not released by Games Workshop (it's copyright at THQ).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/19 13:41:11
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Can marines do that once it's moved? And if they do can they not get out? EXPLEHN THE RULES TO ME PEOPLE, ME RULEBOOK'S IN THE ATTIC!
Yep. Check the transport rules in the basic rule book. It's pretty well covered. Also, notice that the rhino entry has the top hatch listed as a fire point for 2 shooters.
Back to the topic at hand. I was reading last Friday's free download (Nightbringer?) and it talks about the Arbites using the Rhinos. I have no idea what they heck an Arbite is though, but they aren't marines. They sounded like some sort of Planetary Defense Force.
A bolt pistol, which fires a bolt identical to that from a bolt gun, is counted as a close combat weapon, in the current Space Marine codex.
Bolt weaponry is much more deadly in the fluff then it is in the actually game. In the fluff bolt weapons have little trouble killing lighted armored vehicles.
Space Marines in 5th edition do not preform like they do in the fluff.
The Rhino has the ability to repair itself from an imobilised result, the Chimera does not.
kronk wrote:Back to the topic at hand. I was reading last Friday's free download (Nightbringer?) and it talks about the Arbites using the Rhinos. I have no idea what they heck an Arbite is though, but they aren't marines. They sounded like some sort of Planetary Defense Force.
The Arbites are basically the Imperium's version of the FBI. They've got tanks, carapace armour, homing shotgun slugs and entire squads armed with riot shields and power mauls.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. Here's the part where posters arguing about toy soldiers ratchet it down a notch and remember Dakka Rule #1 or a certain moderator gets his jollies suspending people.
What, the mods LIKE hurting people? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
While not being a requirement, its a viewed as a perk we get.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
FAD and No Limits, two table top games I play, take range into account for accuracy. The latter even has in built accuracy mods native to the gun, in which some are at lower levels the closer you get. It slows neither game down if you know how to play the game already. Replace that with "strength" to get your weaker at close range bolters and you'll see it's not really that difficult to implement.
Have you read any OFFICIAL source stating that bolt pistols are ineffective at close range?
Yes I have, the codex. AND The 4th edition wargear book
Look, at the end of the day the bolt accelerates though it's trajectory, that says directly that it's more powerful at longer ranges as you are adding energy over time, and any source you have read to the contrary was wrong and not official fluff. as it is commonly held by the community that bolt weapons are more damaging at longer ranges.
Now I provided a source, lexicannum which is a good source for info on 40k, you have yet to show your sources. Furthermore what you say goes against the entirety of the gaming community, so the burden of proof is on you. I bow out, it's difficult trying to explain things to a brick wall that won't listen.
A bolt pistol, which fires a bolt identical to that from a bolt gun, is counted as a close combat weapon, in the current Space Marine codex.
So is a las pistol, you hit people over the head with them.
In the fluff bolt weapons have little trouble killing lighted armored vehicles.
If this is so in most of the books/fluff it has a lot more to do with the explosive charge.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2010/10/19 23:05:03
gendoikari87 wrote:AND The 4th edition wargear book
Page number and exact quote.
Lexicanum is not a source. What lexicanum is is a USER GENERATED encyclopedia. IE, it is fan-made. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, I use Lexicanum all the time-- but when going for an argument, you do not want to use fan material to argue canon. This means that, rather than attempting to use Lexicanum as a source, you should look for the sources Lexicanum uses, look through them, and get a proper citation of a non-fan-made source.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/19 23:22:29
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
gendoikari87 wrote:AND The 4th edition wargear book
Page number and exact quote.
Lexicanum is not a source. What lexicanum is is a USER GENERATED encyclopedia. IE, it is fan-made. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, I use Lexicanum all the time-- but when going for an argument, you do not want to use fan material to argue canon. This means that, rather than attempting to use Lexicanum as a source, you should look for the sources Lexicanum uses, look through them, and get a proper citation of a non-fan-made source.
I will as soon as I can but you still have yet to cite a source prooving an entire community and the very laws of physics incorrect... Now please your sources?
also This discussion is quite off topic so i'm going to create a new thread for it?
I do not need to prove its lack of existence. It is you, whom is making the assertion, who needs to prove its existence.
Yes, I'll take it to the other thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/19 23:44:57
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
*
KHADOR 
X-Wing (Empire Strong) 
