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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue I see is that the same vehicle mounted Bolters perform differently between codexes, which makes little sense. Stormbolters and Hurricane Bolters are now different between armies.

SJ

The rules were not written to make sense...

What would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The issue I see is that the same vehicle mounted Bolters perform differently between codexes, which makes little sense. Stormbolters and Hurricane Bolters are now different between armies.

SJ

The rules were not written to make sense...

What would make sense in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset

Real World Common Sense/Real World Logic/How it works in the real world has no bearing on the 40k ruleset.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now. (and maybe not even on a planet with the same physical makeup as our earth, and probably different physics as well).

While I agree that there is no need for the rules of how weapons function to conform with the real world, they should make sense within the context of their own background and be consistent across codexes. These rules are neither representative of the background of the 40K universe, nor are they consistent across codexes.

Yes, it makes sense that a large superhuman Space Marine would be more adept with a bolter than would a guardsman or sister of battle be. However, there is no reason a bolter should work less effectively in the hands of an Adeptus Custode than it does in the hands of a Space Marine. That's just sloppy rules writing (which seems to be the one thing that is consistent in 8th edition).

The Space Marine fires more shots that hit less often (3+).
A Custodian fires fewer, well-placed shots (2+)
It’s entirely possible to square away.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Space Marine fires more shots that hit less often (3+).
A Custodian fires fewer, well-placed shots (2+)
It’s entirely possible to square away.

That sounds like it makes sense, until you crunch the numbers. The Space Marines, if they don't move, are on bikes, or use hurricane bolters, will fire twice as many rounds at 24" than will Adeptus Custodes in the exact same situation. Though the Custodes are nominally better shots, the volume of fire will favor the Space Marines every time. Why would the Custodes train in such a way as to be LESS EFFICIENT in their handling of bolt weapons than are Space Marines? You can't make that make sense.

 Norchack wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Space Marine fires more shots that hit less often (3+).
A Custodian fires fewer, well-placed shots (2+)
It’s entirely possible to square away.

That sounds like it makes sense, until you crunch the numbers. The Space Marines, if they don't move, are on bikes, or use hurricane bolters, will fire twice as many rounds at 24" than will Adeptus Custodes in the exact same situation. Though the Custodes are nominally better shots, the volume of fire will favor the Space Marines every time. Why would the Custodes train in such a way as to be LESS EFFICIENT in their handling of bolt weapons than are Space Marines? You can't make that make sense.

Come on though. It's enough to justify the difference in game. You're just nipicking.

 Stux wrote:

 Norchack wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Space Marine fires more shots that hit less often (3+).
A Custodian fires fewer, well-placed shots (2+)
It’s entirely possible to square away.

That sounds like it makes sense, until you crunch the numbers. The Space Marines, if they don't move, are on bikes, or use hurricane bolters, will fire twice as many rounds at 24" than will Adeptus Custodes in the exact same situation. Though the Custodes are nominally better shots, the volume of fire will favor the Space Marines every time. Why would the Custodes train in such a way as to be LESS EFFICIENT in their handling of bolt weapons than are Space Marines? You can't make that make sense.

Come on though. It's enough to justify the difference in game. You're just nipicking.

Not it isn't. The real rationale being used by the devs at GW is "Crap, we wrote poorly fleshed out rules for this edition of 40K. Quick, slap an equally poorly thought through quick fix on Space Marines and call it good. Who cares if rules are well written and consistent with the universe they're meant to abstract, just give the neck bearded chumps a lame excuse and they'll go for it."

Honestly, I think the beta rules for boaters are good. I just think they should apply to Custodes generally and, in the case of vehicle mounted bolters, across the board regardless of faction.

You're massively overreacting, or a troll. I'm not sure which yet.

 Stux wrote:
You're massively overreacting, or a troll. I'm not sure which yet.

Neither. I'm incredulous that people are willing to defend GW on this point.

 Norchack wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Norchack wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Space Marine fires more shots that hit less often (3+).
A Custodian fires fewer, well-placed shots (2+)
It’s entirely possible to square away.

That sounds like it makes sense, until you crunch the numbers. The Space Marines, if they don't move, are on bikes, or use hurricane bolters, will fire twice as many rounds at 24" than will Adeptus Custodes in the exact same situation. Though the Custodes are nominally better shots, the volume of fire will favor the Space Marines every time. Why would the Custodes train in such a way as to be LESS EFFICIENT in their handling of bolt weapons than are Space Marines? You can't make that make sense.

Come on though. It's enough to justify the difference in game. You're just nipicking.

Not it isn't. The real rationale being used by the devs at GW is "Crap, we wrote poorly fleshed out rules for this edition of 40K. Quick, slap an equally poorly thought through quick fix on Space Marines and call it good. Who cares if rules are well written and consistent with the universe they're meant to abstract, just give the neck bearded chumps a lame excuse and they'll go for it."

Honestly, I think the beta rules for boaters are good. I just think they should apply to Custodes generally and, in the case of vehicle mounted bolters, across the board regardless of faction.

It's totally enough to justify in a game where plasma overheats more when it's dark and flamers are the best weapons to shoot down fliers. It's abstract. Unclench, and try to see it as a game, not a perfect representation of reality, for values of reality.

 Octopoid wrote:


It's totally enough to justify in a game where plasma overheats more when it's dark and flamers are the best weapons to shoot down fliers. It's abstract. Unclench, and try to see it as a game, not a perfect representation of reality, for values of reality.

I've never understood the argument that in-universe rules don't have to be applied consistently in fiction. Maybe that's why movies like the live action Transformers films have done so well; many people have incredibly low standards.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Space Marine fires more shots that hit less often (3+).
A Custodian fires fewer, well-placed shots (2+)
It’s entirely possible to square away.

And that's the most fluffy explanation you're going to get. At the end of the day GW did this to buff marines, not custodes.

Is this a YMDC thread to discuss the mechanics of an ambiguous rule, or is this a complaint thread that belongs in another forum?

I think the OPs original question was answered.

Hurricane Bolters are Hurricane Bolters regardless of which platform they are on. Doesn’t matter if it’s an Astartes firing them or a Custodes. The same for a vehicle mounted Stormbolter.

SJ

 Norchack wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:


It's totally enough to justify in a game where plasma overheats more when it's dark and flamers are the best weapons to shoot down fliers. It's abstract. Unclench, and try to see it as a game, not a perfect representation of reality, for values of reality.

I've never understood the argument that in-universe rules don't have to be applied consistently in fiction. Maybe that's why movies like the live action Transformers films have done so well; many people have incredibly low standards.

That's not what's happening here, it's the opposite. You are having unrealistically high standards of how a very abstract game should represent things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hurricane Bolters are Hurricane Bolters regardless of which platform they are on. Doesn’t matter if it’s an Astartes firing them or a Custodes. The same for a vehicle mounted Stormbolter.

SJ

So? They'll still perform differently depending on the shooter.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hurricane Bolters are Hurricane Bolters regardless of which platform they are on. Doesn’t matter if it’s an Astartes firing them or a Custodes. The same for a vehicle mounted Stormbolter.

SJ

Except one is trained one way, and one is trained another way. Not necessarily better or worse, just differently, and that training, including how to fire vehicle-mounted weaponry, makes the difference. It's not about the weapon, it's about the person operating it.

 Stux wrote:

 Norchack wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:


It's totally enough to justify in a game where plasma overheats more when it's dark and flamers are the best weapons to shoot down fliers. It's abstract. Unclench, and try to see it as a game, not a perfect representation of reality, for values of reality.

I've never understood the argument that in-universe rules don't have to be applied consistently in fiction. Maybe that's why movies like the live action Transformers films have done so well; many people have incredibly low standards.

That's not what's happening here, it's the opposite. You are having unrealistically high standards of how a very abstract game should represent things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hurricane Bolters are Hurricane Bolters regardless of which platform they are on. Doesn’t matter if it’s an Astartes firing them or a Custodes. The same for a vehicle mounted Stormbolter.

SJ

So? They'll still perform differently depending on the shooter.

It's unrealistic to expect that the rules for how a specific weapon works should be consistent from codex to codex? You think those standards are too high!?!

 Norchack wrote:



It's unrealistic to expect that the rules for how a specific weapon works should be consistent from codex to codex? You think those standards are too high!?!

It is unrealistic to expect that the rules for a specific weapon will be identical regardless of who is firing it, yes.

 Octopoid wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hurricane Bolters are Hurricane Bolters regardless of which platform they are on. Doesn’t matter if it’s an Astartes firing them or a Custodes. The same for a vehicle mounted Stormbolter.

SJ

Except one is trained one way, and one is trained another way. Not necessarily better or worse, just differently, and that training, including how to fire vehicle-mounted weaponry, makes the difference. It's not about the weapon, it's about the person operating it.

I give up; we're talking in circles here. You clearly place a lower value on consistency and logic than do I.

OP's questions have been answered, we are done here.