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.

 Luciferian wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I was imagining the interceptors to have a similar but different cartridge but yea

ona side note <3 H&K

Ah, see I was imagining they lose range because the round isn't as stable out of the platform.

In response to the side note, I love all my H&Ks.

That's not quite right either. A round fired out of a shorter barrel will have a more stable and predictable flight pattern because shorter barrels don't flex and vibrate as much as longer ones. However, it will also not be traveling as fast. The same round fired out of two different lengths of barrel will be affected by gravity and drop at the same rate, but the one fired from the longer barrel will have a higher velocity and will be able to travel a greater distance before this happens.

on that it depends on harmonics, look up tibasaurus rex's sniper 101 series (literally a good hundred hours of info) on YouTube for a good explanation the longer barrel can effect it or it can help, it depends on other variables, functionally in engagement distances it is not going to really effect it, but if you do long-range shooting it is a variable to consider. long story short a free floating barrel helps but in the long run it is only usually effecting a few inches out at 500+ yards . it is easier to mess up your drop compensation and wind elevation than the harmonics causing a miss

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
@Kanluwen & MechaEmperor7000:

I guess you are both right. I still feel that hand-held Heavy Bolters are not only a bit much but ridiculous. Alas, size creep can´t be avoided.

depends, I mean it does have the shorter range.

I know how people hate to bring real world equivalents into subjects... but I am going t

It's weird, because the Heavy Bolter seems more like a heavy machine gun but in the game it is sometimes used more like a GPMG. These Assault Bolters seem more like M2 pistols than AR pistols, but maybe they're more like M60 pistols.

Either way, it's pretty ridiculous. All of 40k is pretty ridiculous, and I enjoy that aspect of it. Space Marines are also gigantic, transhuman super soldiers in power armor, so they can do a lot of things that are impossible for a human to do.

I'm still having a hard time liking the Assault Bolters. It's not that they're ridiculous, it just seems like they make Heavy Bolters and Storm Bolters lame in comparison (although the Storm Bolter rules haven't been released yet so maybe it will get a buff). It's the same problem I have with Primaris Marines in general. I like the models, and I like Space Marines and think it's a good idea to make them more dangerous on the tabletop so they are a little closer to how they are in the fluff. The thing I don't like about Primaris Marines is that they are coming out with a different set of rules for them, as opposed to making them a new Mk of power armor and giving super duper killy rules to all Space Marines. To me, it makes the older Marines that they've been building up as the ultimate killing machines for so long seem pretty sad and weak.

I'm trying to remain optimistic that they'll have a bunch of fluff that makes me love what they're doing with the Primaris Marines. The bit about being able to upgrade existing Marines into Primaris Marines makes me happy. Even if it doesn't go the way that I personally want, I'll just try to headcannon it away into "nope, the Primaris Marines are just Space Marines and this is always the way Space Marines were." It does no good for me to get all butthurt about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So if the Space Marines are getting Seraphim does this mean the Sisters are getting Drop Pods? Maybe they'll get Land Raiders or Centurions instead?

Or will it be the Tau getting bikes?

I think at this point we should accept that Primaris Marines are going to basically be "Regular Marines +1". They're basically Grey Knights 2.0

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Barrel length would still impact the velocity of the round, because there is still burning propellant behind it creating expanding gasses and building up pressure.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Real world ballistics has no place in 40k. 40k is worse than movie logic when it comes to firearms.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Barrel length would still impact the velocity of the round, because there is still burning propellant behind it creating expanding gasses and building up pressure.

Also, since the round is not, contrary to popular belief, a gyrojet round* and uses a standard method of propellant, it would still need the barrel length to get up to velocity.

*considering they use a standard casing, and still pack a punch at close range, which was something the Gyrojet suffered from.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Barrel length would still impact the velocity of the round, because there is still burning propellant behind it creating expanding gasses and building up pressure.

Rockets don't care about barrel length. the only reason a rocket launcher has what appears to be a long barrel is so the guy firing it doesn't get burnt. the rocket actually sits at the front of the tube.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Barrel length would still impact the velocity of the round, because there is still burning propellant behind it creating expanding gasses and building up pressure.

Also, since the round is not, contrary to popular belief, a gyrojet round* and uses a standard method of propellant, it would still need the barrel length to get up to velocity.

*considering they use a standard casing, and still pack a punch at close range, which was something the Gyrojet suffered from.

Ah cool, that makes a little more sense.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Barrel length would still impact the velocity of the round, because there is still burning propellant behind it creating expanding gasses and building up pressure.

Also, since the round is not, contrary to popular belief, a gyrojet round* and uses a standard method of propellant, it would still need the barrel length to get up to velocity.

*considering they use a standard casing, and still pack a punch at close range, which was something the Gyrojet suffered from.

That's the explanation I heard for the shell casing before (short range punch as the rocket took time to build up speed) but I wonder how long it would take a bolt to build up sufficient speed and also how much barrel length would be required for the amount of powder? I always figured a relatively short barrel would be sufficient, and a long barrel would see very little gains in velocity. I might be making the mistake of seeing a short, fat cartridge and thinking of older, lower pressure cartridges that get very little advantage from being fired from a long barrel.

Of course the reason for all of it is whatever is coolest, and rockets are cool and brass cases ejecting makes for cool pictures, but it's still fun to come up with fluff justifications for things.

Sorry for getting off-topic.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
With rocket propelled ammunition it seems like a long barrel wouldn't do much.

Barrel length would still impact the velocity of the round, because there is still burning propellant behind it creating expanding gasses and building up pressure.

Also, since the round is not, contrary to popular belief, a gyrojet round* and uses a standard method of propellant, it would still need the barrel length to get up to velocity.

*considering they use a standard casing, and still pack a punch at close range, which was something the Gyrojet suffered from.

That's the explanation I heard for the shell casing before (short range punch as the rocket took time to build up speed) but I wonder how long it would take a bolt to build up sufficient speed and also how much barrel length would be required for the amount of powder? I always figured a relatively short barrel would be sufficient, and a long barrel would see very little gains in velocity. I might be making the mistake of seeing a short, fat cartridge and thinking of older, lower pressure cartridges that get very little advantage from being fired from a long barrel.

Of course the reason for all of it is whatever is coolest, and rockets are cool and brass cases ejecting makes for cool pictures, but it's still fun to come up with fluff justifications for things.

Sorry for getting off-topic.

They could have some really hot burning powder like what you find in shotgun magnum loads (which is fitting cause a .75 Cal round like those used in the bolter would be roughly the size of a 12 gauge slug), it'll propel them pretty quickly out the barrel, enough to pack a punch. The rocket could kick off immediately after leaving the barrel, causing further speed build up.

Is this really the place to be having a chat about weapons that have nothing to do with 40k or how they work? Derailing a thread with ot chatter is against the res in most forums.

Ballasar wrote:
Is this really the place to be having a chat about weapons that have nothing to do with 40k or how they work? Derailing a thread with ot chatter is against the res in most forums.

Its barely related as people were questioning the operation of the Bolt Weapons used by the Inceptor Squads, so I guess your question as to why we are discusiion weapons that dont exsit in 40k is moot. As boltguns clearly exist there.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Ballasar wrote:
Is this really the place to be having a chat about weapons that have nothing to do with 40k or how they work? Derailing a thread with ot chatter is against the res in most forums.

Its barely related as people were questioning the operation of the Bolt Weapons used by the Inceptor Squads, so I guess your question as to why we are discusiion weapons that dont exsit in 40k is moot. As boltguns clearly exist there.

No it's fully off topic as it has nothing to do with the op. If you want to discuss current weapons I'm sure there are plenty of forums for that.

Ballasar wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Ballasar wrote:
Is this really the place to be having a chat about weapons that have nothing to do with 40k or how they work? Derailing a thread with ot chatter is against the res in most forums.

Its barely related as people were questioning the operation of the Bolt Weapons used by the Inceptor Squads, so I guess your question as to why we are discusiion weapons that dont exsit in 40k is moot. As boltguns clearly exist there.

No it's fully off topic as it has nothing to do with the op. If you want to discuss current weapons I'm sure there are plenty of forums for that.

I would consider it relevant and many threads evolve to different topics , that is how forums work. We are discussing how they might function, go to your safe place if you need it, the big boys are talking about how the weapons of their toy soldiers might function. if you don't want to read it then ignore the posts that are quoting each-other again these are the standard rules for forums and messageboards since they have existed for the past several decades, If anything your post is what is off topic as all it does is harass members discussing something related to the topic they consider relevant. You can of course try reporting it but I don't think the mods will see this in your favor, I could be wrong.

Ballasar wrote:

No it's fully off topic as it has nothing to do with the op. If you want to discuss current weapons I'm sure there are plenty of forums for that.

I agree that it was off topic a bit, but it wasn't a discussion about current weapons so much as a discussion about general ballistics applied to one specific weapon variation in the 40k universe. Since ballistics (or really, the general laws of physics) apply universally, it is constructive to extrapolate data from current weapon systems if we want to have an idea about how the fictional ones of the 40k universe would behave. In my opinion the only sin here is that we went down a rabbit hole into minute details about one specific model, although I do agree that we should probably leave it there.

Ballasar wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:

Ballasar wrote:
Is this really the place to be having a chat about weapons that have nothing to do with 40k or how they work? Derailing a thread with ot chatter is against the res in most forums.

Its barely related as people were questioning the operation of the Bolt Weapons used by the Inceptor Squads, so I guess your question as to why we are discusiion weapons that dont exsit in 40k is moot. As boltguns clearly exist there.

No it's fully off topic as it has nothing to do with the op. If you want to discuss current weapons I'm sure there are plenty of forums for that.

I wasn't aware that the BOLTGUN or its derivatives were modern weapons. My mistake.

Dumb argument aside, how do people feel about their point cost?

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Dumb argument aside, how do people feel about their point cost?

we'll need to see how they stack up to everything else, but I have a feeling they're gonna be approperate. more or less, they're definatly lookinf like a small elite army tough, unlike a lotta "elite marine armies" though they're getting a durability boost to make em more capable of handling it.

over all "Marines x2" rather then Marines+1 and pointed approperatly

I can only hope their "elite" treatment fares better than 7th edition Deathwatch.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I can only hope their "elite" treatment fares better than 7th edition Deathwatch.

Well Death watch suffers from an issue common to elite space Marine armies, you can load em up with all the bells and whistles you want, but at the end of the day, they're still just space marines.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Dumb argument aside, how do people feel about their point cost?

We have no idea how it stacks up within the wider game at this point.

What do we know? We know how much a non-primaris marine costs. So we can have a look.

Basic space marines cost 13 points now before any other wargear. So ~130 for a tactical squad. Give them some extra gear, a special and a heavy, and 150-160 sounds about right.

Meanwhile three Inceptors will cost 159 or so.

Pros and cons? Well, first and foremost a tac squad is ten men and ten wounds. It is less vulnerable to devastating multi-wound weaponry that can only kill one at a time. It can take specialized weapons for different tasks and possibly hurt things the Inceptors would be bad at handling (like vehilces). But the tac squad isn't all roses. They're slower by default, and while they throw out more shots, 16-20 of those are going to be small arms fire. Meanwhile Inceptors are tossing out S5 (a much improved strength bracket) AP -1 shots that can devastate a great many infantry units. Further, while they have four wounds and more bodies than the Inceptors, they aren't quite as tough. T4 is damn good this edition, but T5 still has some major advantages (especially in this new scary realm of uncapped strength). S8 and S9 weapons now only wound T5 on 3+. A few other perks. Assault weapons means that Inceptors can advance and still fire at 4+ to hit which can be great for range control. They can be dropped in precisely where they need to be and when they need to appear and can devastate targets upon entry. And basically getting new and improved hammer of wrath on the charge along with being able to hit and run makes them very tough to lock down.

So internally, 53 a pop sounds pretty good for the survivability, firepower, and flexibility they bring to the table.

They may end up being to costly relative to other lists, but when compared to the simple and venerable tactical marine (which this edition has been very kind to with a bunch of baseline structural changes) shows that the cost of the unit at least seems plausible. But we'll need to see the rest of the list to know whether the comparison is a good one since we only have hypotheticals and tactical marines to base general worth on.

See? This is a much better topic. Thanks for all the feedback.

I'm curious where the Lieutenants and Ancients will end up.

Chapter Tactics will also be a big determination for them, I believe.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
See? This is a much better topic. Thanks for all the feedback.

I'm curious where the Lieutenants and Ancients will end up.

Chapter Tactics will also be a big determination for them, I believe.

yeah chapter tactics is the big unknown here, as they could effectivly serve as a big force modifier for the right chapter

I intend on making money Raptors. If they still alter bolters, I can see them making these bolt rifles, assault bolters, etc all relatively interesting. Alternatively if they follow a real fluffy route and give me sniper somehow, oh baby.

Guys, it's way too heated in here! If you think a post is inappropriate or off-topic, please just hit the yellow triangle in the corner, but do not debate whether it or not it should have moderator action taken in the thread.

That very much defeats the point, and takes the thread off-topic whether it is or not!

Also, remember Rule #1 on Dakka is "Be Polite". You can disagree without resorting to insults... and we're all excited for the new 40k edition, so let's try to be nice about it

Thanks all

So, regular Plasma guns, what are we thinking here?

Same as it was before, 24, rapid, str 7, -4 ap, dam .1, perhaps the overcharge for d3 damage with the deadlier Gets Hot?

I figure only the fancy pants new Plasma would get the +1 str.

If so, plasma just got so much... worse. Plasma and Grav are the last bits of info I need to know!

Spoiler from the core rule leak, points costs are now known for Primaris marines.

Everything seems fairly in line with where I expected it to be. Intercessors and Hellblasters are a little pricier than I expected though. Inceptors are right around 50 like I figured they would be.

Thoughts?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So, regular Plasma guns, what are we thinking here?

Same as it was before, 24, rapid, str 7, -4 ap, dam .1, perhaps the overcharge for d3 damage with the deadlier Gets Hot?

I figure only the fancy pants new Plasma would get the +1 str.

If so, plasma just got so much... worse. Plasma and Grav are the last bits of info I need to know!

My current guess is the only thing the plasma incinerator has over normal plasma is the exact same thing the bolt rifle got over the bolt gun. That is +6" of range and -1 extra AP.

So far we know the AP scale between 7th and 8th is pretty much intact. So AP-/5/6 are AP0, AP4 becomes AP-1, AP3 becomes AP-2, AP2 becomes AP-3, and AP1 becomes AP-4.

So all else being equal, normal plasma is likely AP-3 in accordance with the scale.

So my guess is:

Plasma Pistol: Range 12" // Pistol 1 // Strength 7 // AP -3 // Damage 1 // each time the model fires the plasma pistol, it can supercharge the weapon before firing. If it does so increase the Strength and Damage of the weapon by 1 this turn. If a 1 is rolled to hit then the model firing the weapon is slain as the weapon explodes.

Plasma Gun: Range 24" // Rapid Fire 1 // Strength 7 // AP -3 // Damage 1 // each time the model fires the plasma gun, it can supercharge the weapon before firing. If it does so increase the Strength and Damage of the weapon by 1 this turn. If a 1 is rolled to hit then the model firing the weapon is slain as the weapon explodes.

Plasma Cannon: Range 36" // Heavy d3(d6?) // Strength 7 // AP -3 // Damage 1 // each time the model fires the plasma cannon, it can supercharge the weapon before firing. If it does so increase the Strength and Damage of the weapon by 1 this turn. If a 1 is rolled to hit then the model firing the weapon is slain as the weapon explodes.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Dumb argument aside, how do people feel about their point cost?

I am a bit worried that they might be overcosted, at least the intercessors.

A tactical marine is 13 points, while intercessor is 24, almost twice as much. Even if the ignore the huge advantage the tacticals have in the form of weapon options, I think even as mere bolterboys the tacticals will be way more efficient for their points. Sure, +6" and better AP is nice, but just having (almost) twice the number of shots is way better. Also, considering that there are a number of multi-damage weapons in the game, 10 one wound dudes are much more resilient than 5 two wound dudes. And considering that the intercessors are a shooty unit with a decent range, the +1 attack will only be very situationally useful.