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.

Like when Jurgen shoots his multi melta and kills a bunch of people/hybrids/cultists/genestealers. I want his multi melta plasma cannon. My multi melta only kills a single troop.

Or like when Eisenhorns deamon host blows up a chaos titan when my inquisitors deamon host out of the GK codex don't have the stats to take on a marine.

What are some other 40k book inconsistencies?


Edit add: I just thought of another. In the 40k books when a Terminator suit gets hit w/ a las cannon, orbital bombardment hit, or any other super powerful weapon like a titans cannon it should survive 1 of 3 times. I have never seen a terminator suit in the books take a las cannon hit, orbital bombardment hit, or any other super powerful weapon like a titans cannon and live.

Or in the books when a transport vehicle gets blown up everyone dies where as by the rules more than half should survive especially if they are wearing powered armor.

Well, Cherubael is NOT your run of the mill Daemon. Most daemonhosts are made with weaker lesser daemons, Cherubael is a much more powerful being.


And the reason meltas can't kill more than one guy is for game balance. If they had some sort of template they'd be broken and nobody would ever take flamers.

In the fluff meltas are a beam that gets wider as the range increases. So it can theoretically kill multiple dudes if they're lined up right. But the same applies to many weapons. A lasgun could kill 2 dudes if they were lined up just right, but a single shot can only kill 1 guy in the game.

If you want more realism, play Dark Heresy. The level of battle simulation can't also show the detail of a bullet going through one guy and also killing another standing behind him.

 Grey Templar wrote:

And the reason meltas can't kill more than one guy is for game balance. If they had some sort of template they'd be broken and nobody would ever take flamers.

In the fluff meltas are a beam that gets wider as the range increases. So it can theoretically kill multiple dudes if they're lined up right.

QFT. I have no desire to see Multi-Meltas go back to their 2" template of Tank/MC/Terminator melting profile of years gone by.

 Mythra wrote:

Edit add: I just thought of another. In the 40k books when a Terminator suit gets hit w/ a las cannon, orbital bombardment hit, or any other super powerful weapon like a titans cannon it should survive 1 of 3 times. I have never seen a terminator suit in the books take a las cannon hit, orbital bombardment hit, or any other super powerful weapon like a titans cannon and live.

There's plenty of fluff examples of Terminators tanking stuff and living. There's that one Terminator Sergeant that got stepped on by a Warhound and lived, for example. It's just that the bigger weapons really should ignore Invulnerable Saves completely. For example, if you get hit head-on by a Hellstorm Cannon you aren't walking away unless you're an Alpha psyker who's really awesome at conjuring shields. Your Crux Terminatus isn't going to save you if the planet you're stood on explodes.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If you want more realism, play Dark Heresy. The level of battle simulation can't also show the detail of a bullet going through one guy and also killing another standing behind him.

I would say if you want "realism" (40k realism) play Inquisitor. If you want a fun and reasonably balanced game system play Dark Heresy.

I mean, we could take this as far as you want and end up playing Phoenix Command in the 40k universe if you're that concerned about realism (have to try this now...why do i do things like this to myself?)

Wouldn't it be easier to just list the novels that do match the rules?

Grey Templar wrote:If you want more realism, play Dark Heresy. The level of battle simulation can't also show the detail of a bullet going through one guy and also killing another standing behind him.

At the same time, there is a number of talents that can result in some rather weird things, such as that perk in DW that lets a squad share and thus negate damage that would otherwise injure or even kill the individual target. This is especially funny when you have situations where, somehow, a squad of four Marines manages to divide and thus nullify the damage from a single lascannon blast or something like that.
I found that the games generally work well at low levels, but the higher you go and the more supplements you include, the more you'll note a power creep that puts GW codices to shame. Good GMs/groups may be able to compensate with houserules, though, and some players may even prefer the way the RAW works.

Also, DH doesn't replicate many of the details from main GW background or rules faithfully, so it depends on one's interpretation of the setting. I'd say that FFG's 40k games are actually closer to "novel 40k" than studio fluff.

I just want the books to match the rules. I guess that is too much to ask!

Yes, it is very much too much to ask.

Trying to make "real life" be accurately represented on the table top would be insanely complicated. That level of detail can only be even attempted in RPGs. And even then you have to have abstraction for the sake of playability. Otherwise it could take an hour to resolve a single burst of a sub-machine gun as you find out what each individual shot does.

 Mythra wrote:
I just want the books to match the rules. I guess that is too much to ask!

Well, considering how the authors tend to make gak up and introduce plot armor just to get the story written, yes, I think that is too much to ask.

Would you like to see SM use multilasers and back flipping terminators as well? Because that's in the books.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
I just want the books to match the rules. I guess that is too much to ask!

Well, considering how the authors tend to make gak up and introduce plot armor just to get the story written, yes, I think that is too much to ask.

Would you like to see SM use multilasers and back flipping terminators as well? Because that's in the books.

Kind of like D&D books had a drow ranger dual-wielding scimitars?

Novels based on games rarely utilize game rules. Otherwise they would be rather boring.

Or get hilariously bad when they try.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
I just want the books to match the rules. I guess that is too much to ask!

Well, considering how the authors tend to make gak up and introduce plot armor just to get the story written, yes, I think that is too much to ask.

Would you like to see SM use multilasers and back flipping terminators as well? Because that's in the books.

Kind of like D&D books had a drow ranger dual-wielding scimitars?

Novels based on games rarely utilize game rules. Otherwise they would be rather boring.

Indeed. The same could be applied to games using conventions from novels; they'll get boring and really silly.

They could have at least had him use a plasma cannon and not a mult melta. The author has played 40k he didn't need to needlessly change the weapon is all I am saying,

Plasma Cannons tend to fire explosive rounds, like a grenade launcher. A flamer would have been better, imo.

Mythra wrote:I just want the books to match the rules. I guess that is too much to ask!

Really depends on the author. Invariably, being allowed to make up your stuff as you go is a bit "easier" than having to respect a world's rules. That it is not impossible should be obvious when you look at the various novels and TV shows that take place in our real world. For some reason, it's normal that it works there and few people would argue that it's impossible to have a story about, say, a special forces unit, and respect real world physics, realism and any background details on how such a unit would operate.

As far as fictional settings go ... Battletech:

"1) Rules take precedence
2) Fluff and novels are next
3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain
4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications
5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.

So, if the writer of a new novel turned in a draft to fact checkers that said, "The MechWarrior plotted his next shot with the cockpit's Ouija board," the fact checkers would, by default, turn to Tech Manual for its description of how BattleMech fire control works and provide proper references for the author to correct his error. Now, if the writer pointed out that a (hypothetical) rule in Total Warfare specified BattleMech fire control was to be handled with a Ouija board, then the rules would take precedence over the fluff. But until contradicted by the rules (or overridden by someone at a higher pay grade), the "fluff" of Tech Manual, Strategic Operations, etc., is very much enforced during continuity reviews."
- http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,26178.msg591660.html#msg591660

And personally, I find that this makes for a more compelling universe, as you as the reader won't be in the awkward position to notice that the rules in your stories seem to change with every book.
Ultimately, a rule that says "lasguns have a 15% chance to punch through power armour and injure the wearer" is not any different from a rule that would describe the chance of a kevlar vest to stop a bullet in a real world setting. If the author feels unable to implement this rule because his heroic story would otherwise not be as awesome anymore ... well, that'd be the failing of the author. Other writers would find a way around this problem, or simply go for a more gritty narrative where people actually do get hurt. Some people may prefer this "laissez-faire" attitude that allows 40k authors an extreme degree of leeway, and us to cherrypick what we like and not, but .. I dunno, my preference would be for a more consistent setting where all the material actually ties into itself.

Assume, for argument's sake, that the vast majority of the fluff is written from the perspective of someone in-universe who isn't necessarily interested in giving you the most physically accurate depiction of what would really happen but is instead tweaked or edited to make the writers' side seem cooler.

It makes a lot of 40k lore make so much more sense it isn't even funny.

AnomanderRake wrote:Assume, for argument's sake, that the vast majority of the fluff is written from the perspective of someone in-universe who isn't necessarily interested in giving you the most physically accurate depiction of what would really happen

Which is indeed how it is supposed to be read, according to the people who write it. *nods*

It remains ... problematic, not in the least because so many fans assume it's all supposed to be compatible (see Lexicanum's role within the community, for example), but I suppose in the end it is a matter of preference regarding whether one would prefer a potentially more entertaining read, or have a more consistent experience across multiple products in the franchise.
Though I still believe that it is merely a matter of an author's willingness to craft an interesting story around the laws of the setting, rather than crafting the setting around the story. The former simply means that not everything is possible, and that it may thus require the writer to look for alternatives to the things that just wouldn't work. Also, with such a large franchise, it has undoubtedly become difficult to keep track of everything that has been written somewhere. Consistency has its price not only in limiting the possibilities, but also in requiring the writers and fact-checkers to be fluent in any topic and detail that is discussed in the respective product.

Problem is many if not most of the 40K books are based around "heroic" individuals and BL seems have a requirement for combat in its books. This means that more subtle investigative or politically based plots are unlikely to be written unless somewhere along the way things break down in to a bolter or chainsword action fight. It also means the heroic characters then have to usually survive and give a good account of themselves unless it is their appointed plot time to die. Because of this, you will usually end up seeing them kill a number of enemy mooks that might be improbable if looking at the 40K rules.

If you look at the BL pieces in the pipeline, they are almost universally about some form of (Chaos) Space Marine. This I find unfortunate because it really limits the kinds of stories possible. It also means that Space Marines can usually resort to brute force to solve their problems, further discouraging other more subtle or clever ways around plot barriers. Why bother investigating a mystery when you can threaten to punch the guy's face in unless he coughs up the information? Why bother to look for a key or an alternative way round the gate or checkpoint when you can just kick down the gate or kill all the guards by charging the checkpoint?

 Lynata wrote:

Also, with such a large franchise, it has undoubtedly become difficult to keep track of everything that has been written somewhere. Consistency has its price not only in limiting the possibilities, but also in requiring the writers and fact-checkers to be fluent in any topic and detail that is discussed in the respective product.

Other large franchises have managed a far higher degree of internal consistency. With any fictional universe there will be some suspension of disbelief, but things have to remain at least mostly internally consistent within that universe's established rules otherwise things risk collapsing into nonsense. If other franchises can manage it, GW can. The only reason seems to be they don't care enough to do so. In particular some of the BL and GW authors seem to have this urge to change things on their own, contradicting existing background, just for the sake of change and perhaps leaving their own mark on the universe.

.75cal mass reactive rocket assisted shells kill normal humans 66% of the time.

I agree on all points. Frankly, to me it just seems as if there is a lot of untapped potential in the franchise, yet GW and its licensees prefers a seemingly simplified approach where the majority of things is focused on epic fightin's and Space Marines and exaggerated heroics. It would be in line with the criticism sometimes heaved upon BL products, and indeed "bolterporn" has become a well-known term in the community.

Then again, perhaps this just sells better than the alternative of a more down-to-earth setting with more variety. It may simply be a question of the target audience, especially considering how both the narratives as well as the visual designs of the setting have changed slightly over the decades.

All we can do is look for what attracts us more, either "voting with our wallets" or simply swallowing the bitter pill and leaning back whilst our own interests are ignored in favour of even more focus on what seems to be the driving force behind the entire franchise, or at least is treated as such.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why I fell in love so quickly with the Battletech franchise - the way its background is handled is everything I have wanted to see from GW in the past.

The tabletop is not even nearly an accurate representation of the fluff.

An assault cannon fires hundreds of rounds a second in the fluff. It has never had nearly so impressive a rate of fire in-game.

Why couldn't a Multi-Melta kill multiple targets with one firing? Squishy humans would not stop the heat beam, it would evaporate them and hit the next thing.

Realism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:
Or like when Eisenhorns deamon host blows up a chaos titan when my inquisitors deamon host out of the GK codex don't have the stats to take on a marine.

Said Daemonhost was in its pure, Immaterial state, which no bound Daemonhost even comes close to. That is why it was capable of doing that.

I just thought of another. In the 40k books when a Terminator suit gets hit w/ a las cannon, orbital bombardment hit, or any other super powerful weapon like a titans cannon it should survive 1 of 3 times. I have never seen a terminator suit in the books take a las cannon hit, orbital bombardment hit, or any other super powerful weapon like a titans cannon and live.

There are plenty of moments of Terminator armour surviving impressive cool gak in the fluff.

The game is a complete abstraction designed with internal balance in mind.

The fluff doesn't try to fit the rules, rather the rules are informed by the fluff (and suitably adjusted for game balance).

 Lynata wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to just list the novels that do match the rules?

I think that would be an extremely short list.. i.e. an empty one!

As has been said though, there are different routes to that - Dark Heresy, Inquisitor, even 'movie marine' rules for instance although the 40k rules don't have anything like the depth to pull of that level of complexity (it being a mass-combat system). Something like Tomorrow's War, adapted to the setting, can give more of a parity with the background and also represent the different tactics that the different units will use.

Pacific wrote:As has been said though, there are different routes to that - Dark Heresy, Inquisitor, even 'movie marine' rules for instance

Movie Marine rules? Really? The ones with stunt doubles and deliberate suspension of the laws of physics? Where "plot armour" is an actual trait for one side over the other, even when you have Marines fighting Marines?
Or did I understand that incorrectly and we are looking for rules that fit the various exaggerated instances of fluff in the novels now, rather than the other way around? If so, the Movie Marines are probably a good candidate, followed by Dark Heresy.

GW's Inquisitor RPG is, I think, rather close to the studio's fluff, although this obviously also means that characters get injured quickly. The one thing that doesn't really fit there is the Healing Roll after each turn of combat. Take that away and you're good to go?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Would you like to see SM use multilasers

Space Marines with multilasers is canon. You just may not be old enough to remember it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rems01 wrote:
The game is a complete abstraction designed with internal balance in mind.

The fluff doesn't try to fit the rules, rather the rules are informed by the fluff (and suitably adjusted for game balance).

For sure.

Tabletop 40K gives no pretense to adhering to fluff. It exists solely to sell little plastic toys and provide a rule set where you can place exactly "equal" armies on effectively neutral terrain and have them "battle" it out. You know, stuff that never happens in real life. But it's a game, nothing more.

In fact, the "sell little plastic toys" is more important than anything else. If it never seems like Terminators or Space Marines are as tough as they are supposed to be, remember, if you only needed fifteen of them to play a game, Games Workshop wouldn't be able to sell you nearly as many.

 Mythra wrote:
They could have at least had him use a plasma cannon and not a mult melta. The author has played 40k he didn't need to needlessly change the weapon is all I am saying,

The melta weapons in the books behave in a realistic manner (as realistic as a space-fantasy weapon can). A weapon that fires a beam of fusion energy that melts a tank like butter is going to be able to heat-kill an armored man within several meters of that beam as all the water in his blood turns to steam and explodes out of him.

Why, oh why, can't the game match the fluff?

Try this experimental rule

While reading Black Library novel, whenever a character is attacked roll a d3.
On a 3+ the character dies, the story ends. Put down the book and buy another one

 Mythra wrote:
I just want the books to match the rules. I guess that is too much to ask!

Yes. If nothing else, because the rules change fairly frequently.

More importantly, because giving authors creative freedom tends to make for better stories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:


Why, oh why, can't the game match the fluff?

Because it is a game.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The tabletop is not even nearly an accurate representation of the fluff.

An assault cannon fires hundreds of rounds a second in the fluff. It has never had nearly so impressive a rate of fire in-game.

Why couldn't a Multi-Melta kill multiple targets with one firing? Squishy humans would not stop the heat beam, it would evaporate them and hit the next thing.

Realism.

The shooting rules in 40k are an abstraction. They exist to give an idea of how effective a particular unit is over an undetermined time. An assault cannon doesn't fire 4 shots in one burst any more than rapid fire weapons fire 2 shots at close range and 1 shot beyond. These rules are used to determine the likelihood of a unit firing these weapons causing damage to a target.

For heavy weapons, especially infantry heavy weapons, the fire rate is probably even weirder. Given set up time and aiming time, perhaps all of the enemy models killed by a paricular multi melta shot go down in one massive discharge of energy, and its just the game turn concepg that spreads the casualties out iver the different turns.

Also Jurgen carries a normal melta, rather than a multi-melta. Mr Mitchell's description of this unwieldy support weapon tends to overstate its actual status.

 Flinty wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The tabletop is not even nearly an accurate representation of the fluff.

An assault cannon fires hundreds of rounds a second in the fluff. It has never had nearly so impressive a rate of fire in-game.

Why couldn't a Multi-Melta kill multiple targets with one firing? Squishy humans would not stop the heat beam, it would evaporate them and hit the next thing.

Realism.

The shooting rules in 40k are an abstraction. They exist to give an idea of how effective a particular unit is over an undetermined time. An assault cannon doesn't fire 4 shots in one burst any more than rapid fire weapons fire 2 shots at close range and 1 shot beyond. These rules are used to determine the likelihood of a unit firing these weapons causing damage to a target.

For heavy weapons, especially infantry heavy weapons, the fire rate is probably even weirder. Given set up time and aiming time, perhaps all of the enemy models killed by a paricular multi melta shot go down in one massive discharge of energy, and its just the game turn concepg that spreads the casualties out iver the different turns.

Also Jurgen carries a normal melta, rather than a multi-melta. Mr Mitchell's description of this unwieldy support weapon tends to overstate its actual status.

So you are saying you agree with me then?

Thank you.