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.

Why Strength 25 or more, Macro D6 and 12 Damage?

I am assuming that it is supposed to basically always do damage except on a 1, but that Strength seems to be a super outlier. The Bellicosa has the highest Strength in the game, right?

Is there any reason (other than fluff) to not take Volcano Cannons?

-STS

Main reason would be # of shots.

The Bellicosa Volcano Cannon is the most powerful weapon in the game at S:32 AP:-5 D:18. The reason it is stated as such is that so it wounds everything on 2's no matter what, since the highest Toughness in the game is the Warlord Titan at T:16.

As for why you would use something else, the Bellicosa is the best single target, but it's still only D3+3 shots on a BS:3+. Put that into something with a decent invul and you could still theoretically wiff it, especially if they can pop smoke. Even, so, if you're going up against other titans, there's nothing better, however if you want it to support an army, the Sunfury Plasma Anihilator will outmore more into smaller vehicles or hose elite infantry. The Macro Gattling Blaster is a big anti-elite gun as well. Wheras if you're in something like a room sized Apoc game, the Mori Quake Cannon sports a dizzying 280" range, so shoot across the room to destroy large targets assailing your allies.

Maybe more of a Proposed Rules convo, but I don't think any ranged weapon should have a "flat" damage of more than 3. Very powerful guns could still have a >3 minimum damage (such as D6+3, D6+6, or 2D6+6), but being ranged should come with some sacrifice in reliability to account for glancing hits or a moving target. If you want high yet dependable damage (like flat 6), you have to deal it up close and personal.

Conversely, I think almost all melee attacks should have flat damage, with the exception of attacks that have some "wildcard" quality. Mortarion's scythe should have Dmg 4 or 5, not D6+1.

To quote Alexander Suvorov: "The bullet is foolish, the bayonet wise".

.

The bullet is save, the bayonet is danger

its from me

Not to dogpile, but would that be the same Alexander Suvorov who died in 1800, a full 60 years before the invention of the Gatling gun? Because those kind of quotes seem like they'd usually end with "(Note: So-and-so McQuoterson was killed by a sniper in the Battle of --------)".

 waefre_1 wrote:
Not to dogpile, but would that be the same Alexander Suvorov who died in 1800, a full 60 years before the invention of the Gatling gun? Because those kind of quotes seem like they'd usually end with "(Note: So-and-so McQuoterson was killed by a sniper in the Battle of --------)".

I feel like when you’re trying to make 40k work more realistically, you may be missing the point.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:
Not to dogpile, but would that be the same Alexander Suvorov who died in 1800, a full 60 years before the invention of the Gatling gun? Because those kind of quotes seem like they'd usually end with "(Note: So-and-so McQuoterson was killed by a sniper in the Battle of --------)".

I feel like when you’re trying to make 40k work more realistically, you may be missing the point.

Sure, but suspension of disbelief only goes so far, and it feels like that quote isn't saying "bayonets kill better than bullets", but rather "musket accuracy sucks ass, and getting close enough to stab a guy means he's less likely to be able to crawl away into cover and do first aid before bleeding out/getting hit again".

Edit: I am coming at things from at least a semi-simulationist point here, of course, that's just how I like my wargames. So, to me, using that quote to justify ranged weapons doing lower damage overall just strikes my ear a bit funny.

It really just depends on what you are trying to simulate.

The fuller quote from Suvorov is something like this:
"Save the bullets for three days, and sometimes even for the entire campaign, if there's nowhere to replenish it! Shoot rarely, but accurately. Stab with the bayonet strongly, as the bullet may miss, but the bayonet won't. Bullet is stupid, bayonet is bold."

Then a bit later:

"A hero can kill half a dozen men with a bayonet, and I saw even higher toll. Save the bullet in the barrel. If you're ambushed by three men - stab the first, shoot the second and then finish off the third with bayonet. It happens rarely but then you don't have time to reload. Do not stop in your attack."

Leaving aside the fact this stuff would work as Imperial propaganda - the big issue was that in Suvovrov's day guns and bullets weren't readily available. If his troops fired all their ammo to little effect, they couldn't readily procure more. At the same time guns were relatively slow to fire. They were also noisy and messy. There are various examples of troops firing their guns too early - doing essentially no damage as a result, and are now effectively blinded in a haze of gunsmoke. They consequently mill around doing nothing (or worse, panic and run off) while the battle rages around them. By contrast if they were fighting with bayonets they'd at least be doing something to help the wider battle.

40k has moved around on this. In something like 3rd edition (certainly early third) it was relatively difficult to have enough shooting to clear people off the table. You'd tend to therefore advance up the table, and things would be settled in assault. By contrast move on later - and if set up on planet bowling ball, entire armies would get deleted by slightly above average rolling from predominantly shooting armies.

Today I think GW is trying to sort of have both be viable, in which case I'm not sure there should be bias towards "shooting should be worse just cos". Although being honest I don't really like things like Volcano cannons being in 40k, and I'd prefer if GW was a bit more circumspect with scale creep. But I think that ship sailed a long long time ago.

It is a 3.5k model.

If you have one you will basically only play it once every decade, so not particularly relevant to the average game.