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.

You can consider this a Public Service Announcement.

I always see a a lot of threads about comparing the 40K world to real life, and there are two major mistakes that people make on this topic.

1: 40K is not real. It is not realistic. Not all fluff agrees, even. The only fluff that can really be trusted is "canon" or from a codex or the rulebook. Somebody once wrote that "just becuase C.S. Goto says terminators can do back flips, doesn't mean they can." I'm not saying your not allowed to gauge how powerful this or that is. Nor am I trashing Dan Abnett, or your favorite author, I'm just saying that there is no fact.

2: Guns cannot be measured by little stat bars like they are in video games, and they don't have stats. You cannot say that an MP5 is "better" than an AK47. The guns perform differently, and have different qualities. AK47's do not do "more damage." They shoot bullets that kill people. Just because a gun *can* punch through armour doesn't mean it does.

I would appreciate it if you would consider this before you post about this stuff.

Mustela wrote:You can consider this a Public Service Announcement.

I always see a a lot of threads about comparing the 40K world to real life, and there are two major mistakes that people make on this topic.

1: 40K is not real. It is not realistic. Not all fluff agrees, even. The only fluff that can really be trusted is "canon" or from a codex or the rulebook. Somebody once wrote that "just becuase C.S. Goto says terminators can do back flips, doesn't mean they can." I'm not saying your not allowed to gauge how powerful this or that is. Nor am I trashing Dan Abnett, or your favorite author, I'm just saying that there is no fact.

2: Guns cannot be measured by little stat bars like they are in video games, and they don't have stats. You cannot say that an MP5 is "better" than an AK47. The guns perform differently, and have different qualities. AK47's do not do "more damage." They shoot bullets that kill people. Just because a gun *can* punch through armour doesn't mean it does.

I would appreciate it if you would consider this before you post about this stuff.

The bold part is incorrect, according to both Gav Thorpe (a former GW studio designer, and current Black Library author), and Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

Edit: Incidentally, the part about gun comparisons is also a little factually incorrect. A 7.62 fired from an AK-47 will do more damage to just about anything than a 9mm from an MP5.

What Seaward said, their is no "True Canon" it's just what you feel like you want to believe is in this make believe universe, no one can say "my view on the fantasy world are more valid than you're view"

example...I'm making a Malal army the 5th god of chaos....People yell how he's not part of the 40k universe anymore, I like to believe he is so he's Canon for me.

but everything else you said is spot on

I hope everyone that posts in 40k background reads this...

I agree with you - in fluff discussion guns must not have tabletop or video game stats.
But I always tried to make my armies (at least IG) as sci-fi and realistic as it's possible in the mad, mad universe of 40k.

AK-47's do cause more damage then an MP5. It shoots higher caliber ammunition at a greater velocity. Yes, body armor isn't 100% absolute or consistent, but AK's still cause more damage to it and other object then an MP5 short of a defective gun or ammunition.

It's all slander, lies, and propaganda.

Space Marines really look like this.

My eyes!

My poor defenseless eyes!!!!

Nice conversions though

bombboy1252 wrote:What Seaward said, their is no "True Canon" it's just what you feel like you want to believe is in this make believe universe, no one can say "my view on the fantasy world are more valid than you're view"

example...I'm making a Malal army the 5th god of chaos....People yell how he's not part of the 40k universe anymore, I like to believe he is so he's Canon for me.

but everything else you said is spot on

I hope everyone that posts in 40k background reads this...

I might start a army dedicated to Bork. Oh, the looks on our faces when the Deceiver/Tzeentch/the Laughing God takes off his disguise and laughs at what we've done to further his goals!

Not being sarcastic there, within the fluff there's as many paranoid conspiracy theories as there are elaborate conspiracies and there's plenty of room for a small warband or company to know they're right whilst everyone else are the deluded and misguided ones. If anything, the occasional follower of an 'obviously fake' deity just adds to the background of frightened people in the big darkness.

i think the most important fact to remember when playing 40k (or any table top game for that matter) is that "ITS A FRACKING GAME" --beasts of war andy--- i am in favor of spirited arguements, but when people take it so seriously it angers them, thats too far.

Don't forget the Most Important Rule of WH40k!

Seaward wrote:The bold part is incorrect, according to both Gav Thorpe (a former GW studio designer, and current Black Library author), and Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

To be fair, Gav still drew a line between studio material and licensed products. Aaron just ... wasn't very clear on the whole subject, given that he still ended his blog post with the intention of "staying true to the source material" without clarifying what this means for him personally (I suppose he was referring to the very basic structure, i.e. there is an Imperium and it has Space Marines, but not the fine details such as armour design).
Note that I'm not saying that the position of there not being any "True Canon" is wrong - I can see the possibility now, I am just not yet fully convinced.

Not that this should make a difference, mind you. I fully agree that we need to keep in mind that this is a sci-fi setting that, occasionally, simply imposes its own rules that may not mesh with the ones we are used to. Comparisons to real life morale or technology rarely work (especially as we usually lack all necessary information). Don't get me wrong, I like realism, I like detail, and I love it when stuff makes sense. But I also think that a certain degree of "suspension of disbelief" is a necessary element, especially in a setting like 40k.

That said, I still think some "basics" need to be kept in mind. "Bolters hurt more than lasguns" or "Marines are stronger than normal people", that sort of stuff. If we would not stick to these principles we would not need this sub-forum. A certain level of "common ground" is required to achieve a basis for communication, else it's just personal preference versus personal preference. Above this common ground, we are free to exchange our ideas and opinions and stuff we have read, to be adopted or dismissed based on an individual's chosen stance on canonicity (whether it exists at all or not).

I guess what I'm trying to say is ... analyze! research! discuss! But do so by keeping in mind we're talking about a fictional setting with its own rules.

Harriticus wrote:AK-47's do cause more damage then an MP5. It shoots higher caliber ammunition at a greater velocity. Yes, body armor isn't 100% absolute or consistent, but AK's still cause more damage to it and other object then an MP5 short of a defective gun or ammunition.

No it doesn't.

Caliber is a measure of diameter of the round.
In some parts of the world it is measured from the land to the groove of the weapon's rifling and in others it is measured from the groove to groove.

No matter how you measure it, 9mm is more than 7.62mm.

The AK does however have more muzzle energy.
The problem with bullets is that they loose energy as they use it to push air out of the way.

There will be a range at which an AK bullet has a quantity of energy equal to the muzzle energy of an 9mm bullet fired from an MP5.

The problem with comparing imaginary weapons with real is this:

Ill informed generalisation.
Which AK? Which MP5? They have different length barrels etc. and are incomparable based on that limited information.


It is human nature to try to gain understanding of alien ideas by relating them to things we know well.

Seaward wrote:Incidentally, the part about gun comparisons is also a little factually incorrect. A 7.62 fired from an AK-47 will do more damage to just about anything than a 9mm from an MP5.

They're both equally dead. Humans don't have "hit points."

Saldiven wrote:They're both equally dead. Humans don't have "hit points."

Umm not exactly.
7,62x39 has generally speaking an better hydrostatic shock than the 9x19. In other words the target area for lethal hits and instantly paralyzing hits is larger.

Mustela wrote:Guns cannot be measured by little stat bars like they are in video games, and they don't have stats.

They have stats and can be measured though its pretty complicated.
Like if an combat shotgun fires 26 tungsten pellets per shot that each have an similar kinetic energy to 9x19 bullets while also having an better armour penetration it clearly deals more damage per shot but an mp5 allows more aimed shots in the same time since it has an better magazine capacity and the difference in recoil is significant.

Otherwise I totally agree comparing WH40K to real life is somewhat pointless. Like handgrenades can be used only in close combat and do less damage than an rifle butt, unless the target is an AFV.

Hmm, what I am getting out of this is:
NO FUN FOR YOUR! Because it isn't real you aren't allowed to compare it to real life or discuss how things might work or compare!!!

Which just isn't fun. Obviously it isn't real life and doesn't work like real life. But, as is the case with fantasy, it is all about us imagining what it would be like if it were real. Hence the discussion.

Your definition of 'canon' is off, canonically. Everything is canon. And just like the real work, lot's of it is wrong. Opinion, misinformation, and propaganda. I actually feel it is a strength of 40k's. It means when one book says something dumb (a leman rus tank has the equivalent of 30mm steel armor, Calgar totally beat up an avatar solo, there is a half eldar marine), it was just propaganda or wrong. We can look at the whole of it to get a feel for how things are supposed to work and theorize as to the how and why without being constrained by that one edition of white dwarf or dumb line in the new codex.

HENCE THE DISCUSSION!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What is more, stats are an ABSTRACTION! And we DO use them for weaponry in real life.

Things like HP and wounds don't just measure how much damage you can take, or say that you can be hit in the eye with a bullet and still survive. They measure your luck, savvy, toughness, speed, and skill.

We CAN use stats to try and understand how something would work in real life and they give us a generalized idea about how things stack up.

All that aside, in the end people enjoy discussing fantasy universes, and in general they understand the difference between statistics and real life. Condescending posts like this just come across as NO FUN TIME.

Ok I should have been more specific.
Comparing the WH40K tabletop game to real life is pointless unless you wan't to use home made rules.
Discussing the story itself is another thing. Like how difficult is it to locate and intercept an enemy fleet while it is warp travelling?

Lynata wrote:

Seaward wrote:The bold part is incorrect, according to both Gav Thorpe (a former GW studio designer, and current Black Library author), and Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

To be fair, Gav still drew a line between studio material and licensed products. Aaron just ... wasn't very clear on the whole subject, given that he still ended his blog post with the intention of "staying true to the source material" without clarifying what this means for him personally (I suppose he was referring to the very basic structure, i.e. there is an Imperium and it has Space Marines, but not the fine details such as armour design).
Note that I'm not saying that the position of there not being any "True Canon" is wrong - I can see the possibility now, I am just not yet fully convinced.

Not that this should make a difference, mind you. I fully agree that we need to keep in mind that this is a sci-fi setting that, occasionally, simply imposes its own rules that may not mesh with the ones we are used to. Comparisons to real life morale or technology rarely work (especially as we usually lack all necessary information). Don't get me wrong, I like realism, I like detail, and I love it when stuff makes sense. But I also think that a certain degree of "suspension of disbelief" is a necessary element, especially in a setting like 40k.

That said, I still think some "basics" need to be kept in mind. "Bolters hurt more than lasguns" or "Marines are stronger than normal people", that sort of stuff. If we would not stick to these principles we would not need this sub-forum. A certain level of "common ground" is required to achieve a basis for communication, else it's just personal preference versus personal preference. Above this common ground, we are free to exchange our ideas and opinions and stuff we have read, to be adopted or dismissed based on an individual's chosen stance on canonicity (whether it exists at all or not).

I guess what I'm trying to say is ... analyze! research! discuss! But do so by keeping in mind we're talking about a fictional setting with its own rules.

ADB was very clear to everyone else Lynata.

The rulebook has had incorrect fluff in the past, so don't act like THAT is the ultimate source.

Take this:

Mustela wrote:1: 40K is not real. It is not realistic. Not all fluff agrees, even. The only fluff that can really be trusted is "canon" or from a codex or the rulebook. Somebody once wrote that "just becuase C.S. Goto says terminators can do back flips, doesn't mean they can." I'm not saying your not allowed to gauge how powerful this or that is. Nor am I trashing Dan Abnett, or your favorite author, I'm just saying that there is no fact.

Multiply it by this:

Melissia wrote:The rulebook has had incorrect fluff in the past, so don't act like THAT is the ultimate source.

Everything you need to know about this thread.

Seriously, no 40K armies use AK's or MP5's, so who cares. Bring me a genuine Ork slugga, big shoota and rokkit launcha and we'll compare them to real weapons. How about you play Flames of War instead.

This is directly aimed at another thread going on right now. You could have at least brought up your issue with the thread in progress.

As it were, some people have made ill informed or poorly constructed comments....but the intent of the thread was to find modern equivalents to 40k weapons in their purpose/use.

Anyway...i do agree that it is a little crass to try and compare "stats" on weapons that are being used to kill actual people...unless you are being very technical as some others have the knowledge to do. But not everyone has that knowledge, and therefore they have to post with what they know...if they are wrong...kindly point them towards something correct.

As opposed to creating the most passive aggressive thread I have ever seen.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Lynata wrote:

Seaward wrote:The bold part is incorrect, according to both Gav Thorpe (a former GW studio designer, and current Black Library author), and Aaron Dembski-Bowden.

To be fair, Gav still drew a line between studio material and licensed products. Aaron just ... wasn't very clear on the whole subject, given that he still ended his blog post with the intention of "staying true to the source material" without clarifying what this means for him personally (I suppose he was referring to the very basic structure, i.e. there is an Imperium and it has Space Marines, but not the fine details such as armour design).
Note that I'm not saying that the position of there not being any "True Canon" is wrong - I can see the possibility now, I am just not yet fully convinced.

Not that this should make a difference, mind you. I fully agree that we need to keep in mind that this is a sci-fi setting that, occasionally, simply imposes its own rules that may not mesh with the ones we are used to. Comparisons to real life morale or technology rarely work (especially as we usually lack all necessary information). Don't get me wrong, I like realism, I like detail, and I love it when stuff makes sense. But I also think that a certain degree of "suspension of disbelief" is a necessary element, especially in a setting like 40k.

That said, I still think some "basics" need to be kept in mind. "Bolters hurt more than lasguns" or "Marines are stronger than normal people", that sort of stuff. If we would not stick to these principles we would not need this sub-forum. A certain level of "common ground" is required to achieve a basis for communication, else it's just personal preference versus personal preference. Above this common ground, we are free to exchange our ideas and opinions and stuff we have read, to be adopted or dismissed based on an individual's chosen stance on canonicity (whether it exists at all or not).

I guess what I'm trying to say is ... analyze! research! discuss! But do so by keeping in mind we're talking about a fictional setting with its own rules.

ADB was very clear to everyone else Lynata.

As was Gav, actually. I'd only read that blog post recently, and just took everyone's word that he hadn't really said there was no difference in canon between GW and BL. But no, that's exactly what he said: GW studio codices are as canon as Black Library novels.

Guns themselves have basically nothing to do with 'damage'. Caliber has more to do with it, but even that's a sketchy topic, unless we're comparing, I dunno, a common rimfire cartridge, like a .22LR(caliber obviously being .22).

Cartridge is where you would want to look for 'damage'(tissue disruption), and even then, terminal ballistics is a lot of misinformed insanity.

To my understanding, to inflict maximum tissue disruption, you actually want a large, heavy, and relatively *slow* round and ideally lots of them.

KilroyKiljoy wrote:It's all slander, lies, and propaganda.

Space Marines really look like this.

almost as great as the MLP pic

KamikazeCanuck wrote:ADB was very clear to everyone else Lynata.

ADB's statements:
- GW/BL/FW/FFG all produce canon
- BL has lots of authors with different perceptions and interpretations
- a number of said authors produced stuff that, in his own opinion, doesn't rhyme with how 40k works at all
- When he doesn't like stuff from other novels or a codex he just changes it for his own books

That's not how "canon" works. In fact, he clearly contradicted himself there.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that ADB uses the terms "IP" and "canon" interchangably, as if "canon" would simply mean an officially licensed product rather than something that establishes background rules for other products to follow.
Similar to his referenced "it's all real and none of it is". Oxymorons are not a very good clarification at all.

Andy Hoare, in a single short comment on that blogpost, has explained it in a much better way with much less words:
"It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."

Seaward wrote:As was Gav, actually. I'd only read that blog post recently, and just took everyone's word that he hadn't really said there was no difference in canon between GW and BL. But no, that's exactly what he said: GW studio codices are as canon as Black Library novels.

Uh, actually, he compared Black Library novels to various players' homemade Marine Chapters. And he drew a firm line between Black Library novels and "the world promulgated by army books and codexes", stating that the studio adopts stuff they like and simply disregards the rest.

Now, one could argue that the above statements come down to "there is no canon AT ALL" - and actually, the above statements are what led me to consider this (though I am not yet convinced, as there is still ambiguity and interpretation possible on those subjects). The only thing that is for sure is that GW does not feel compelled at all to stick to what some mercenary author wrote into his licensed product, as well as that authors of licensed material have a lot of artistic licence. In short: it's obvious by now that BL cannot be canon, and it is questionable if GW is.

Lynata, Andy Hoare's comment there: He's talking about the studio.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Lynata, Andy Hoare's comment there: He's talking about the studio.

Given that the blogpost was addressing the issue of canonicity in relation to novels, I'd interpret it as being limited to that. Keep in mind Andy Hoare is now "only" writing licensed publications, too.

As I said, I can see the possibility of it actually referring to everything (especially given the choice of words when he mentioned "no absolute truth"), but it's still somewhat open for interpretation. Enough so that my current opinion is shaken but not yet toppled, if that makes any sense. I guess you could see me as being in the middle of another change of opinion (after I have already given up on the common idea of "everything is canon" about a year ago), but I'd like to read more until I'm adopting the absence of canon entirely.

Harriticus wrote:AK-47's do cause more damage then an MP5. It shoots higher caliber ammunition at a greater velocity. Yes, body armor isn't 100% absolute or consistent, but AK's still cause more damage to it and other object then an MP5 short of a defective gun or ammunition.

Um...no, a 9mm is a larger caliber than the 7.62mm. Caliber ONLY measures the width of the bullet, and if you refer to the caliber of a weapon, generally you are actually meaning the round it fires, such as 7.62mm x 39 or 9mm x 19, which incorporates caliber, but it also measures the length of the case (not the overall length).

So yes you are correct that the AK-47 has better ballistics and is capable of causing more damage than an MP-5. You are incorrect about the caliber being higher.

BUT...I can always go find a different type of bullet or maybe rechamber my MP-5 to fire something like the 6.5x25mm CBJ which has ballistics at least equal to, if not slightly better than the 7.62mmx39 from the AK-47.

Weapons + caliber and type of ammunition + skill of operator = effects...if any of the three are less than what you need, then the whole equation would be less than what you need.

Remember if all you want is damage, then use a nuke...what you want is "just enough" damage.

-STS

I'm going with a full Goto army. The Terminators all have jump packs and carry a different leman Russ variant on each finger, you know why? Because f*ck physics.

Lynata wrote:And he drew a firm line between Black Library novels and "the world promulgated by army books and codexes", stating that the studio adopts stuff they like and simply disregards the rest.

No, he didn't, at least not in the way you're making it sound. He definitely did not say, "one is canon and the other isn't." GW's only canon policy is that they don't have a canon policy.