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.
I heard the housing in middle eastern countries and walls over there are great at stopping bullets because of the materials. But it depends on many things.
Some bullets shatter on impact, but yes I fired a 22 at a car door to show someone how bullets work and it went right through. Hiding behind it would be worse as the bullet would change direction and enter awkwardly. It would also bring fragments causing more damage.
Bullets are crazy.
You are right though, bullets are incredibly lethal.
Or rather, we normal humans are just incredibly fragile. We are positively cluttered with weak spots and die from like anything.
You and I gotta play Space Marine sometime, Swasta.
Do you have it? And do you have the Chaos DLC?
No sorry. I am not a fan of FPS games. I didnt mind rising storm and play mount and blade nepolionics a lot. But I play games like civ 3 or war thunder on realistic mode and other simulators etc.
So no Space Marine for me. Punching Grots for health made me not look beyond the cover.
Its a pity because I am very good at FPS games too. Back when i used to play them.
It isn't actually a FPS.
The punching grots for health thing is okay if you remember that it is there because they decided that representing your toughness via active mitigation/regeneration is more exciting gamewise than a fixed health bar.
Sorry, I refer to 3rd person as FPS as well. I dont even know what to call a 3rd person shooter.
3rd person is better for taking cover though. I prefer nearly no health in games. Taking more than 1 hit from most weapons being rare is perfect for me. No room for error. Kill or be killed. Sensibility is also encouraged. I also dont like AI, they lack the necessary technology to make AI learning and changing enough. Health should not be regained during a short skirmish or battle. One life per match is also preferred.
Thanks for the offer though. I have found a couple of dakka members who play some of those games so im not left out haha.
Aww! But walking through gunfire unharmed is so cool! At least if you have PA or something.
I guess you would like call of duty?
But look at this, admit it looks really fun!
(Admittedly this was the easiest part- when the amount of Nobz or Primaris Psykers starts stacking up, it can get tougher. That I glitched a few times was purely due to my laggy computer!)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/05 01:35:21
I heard the housing in middle eastern countries and walls over there are great at stopping bullets because of the materials. But it depends on many things.
Some bullets shatter on impact, but yes I fired a 22 at a car door to show someone how bullets work and it went right through. Hiding behind it would be worse as the bullet would change direction and enter awkwardly. It would also bring fragments causing more damage.
Bullets are crazy.
You are right though, bullets are incredibly lethal.
Or rather, we normal humans are just incredibly fragile. We are positively cluttered with weak spots and die from like anything.
Yea, dying from one bullets isnt usually fast either. If I ever get shot im gonna be guttered. Either die slowly, die outright, or need a lot of rehabilitation to get myself working again.
Imagine the stench of getting shot in the gut. Or feeling your bone fragments when you touch the wound on your shoulder. Or worse, having the bullet bounce around inside so you cant breath properly. I mean, people say gas is horrible, but bullets sound worse.
This is the kind of gridmark stuff 40k needs. Down to earth suckyness.
I used to play COD, however I did turn down the health to minimum, turned off kill streaks and got rid of the HUD. But not enough people played that kind of mode so I got sicking of waiting for ages to get a game.
I will check out the video tonight after work. Dont get your hopes up though
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/08/05 01:38:16
You and I gotta play Space Marine sometime, Swasta.
Do you have it? And do you have the Chaos DLC?
No sorry. I am not a fan of FPS games. I didnt mind rising storm and play mount and blade nepolionics a lot. But I play games like civ 3 or war thunder on realistic mode and other simulators etc.
So no Space Marine for me. Punching Grots for health made me not look beyond the cover.
Its a pity because I am very good at FPS games too. Back when i used to play them.
It isn't actually a FPS.
The punching grots for health thing is okay if you remember that it is there because they decided that representing your toughness via active mitigation/regeneration is more exciting gamewise than a fixed health bar.
Never really played Halo, but referring to your post, I guess it is a Rosarius-equivalent. Rosarius. We have tons of them. Marines have Iron Halo or stuff like that. And they steal our rosarius too .
The former is an Iron Halo, the latter is a Halo shield.
While possibly similar in effectiveness, I think the differences are distinctive.
The Spacemarine campaign was good up until Chaos showed up. It would have been believable with Titus and his veterans slaughtering orks, especially simce they never really arrived with hordes larger than 300. But when the daemons and chais marines showed up thats when it lossed it fluffiness. Still one of the best and funnest games I ever played.
If you havent seen it, you should definitely watch totalbiscuit on youtube doing some Spacemarine gameplay. He was pretty hilarious.
You and I gotta play Space Marine sometime, Swasta.
Do you have it? And do you have the Chaos DLC?
No sorry. I am not a fan of FPS games. I didnt mind rising storm and play mount and blade nepolionics a lot. But I play games like civ 3 or war thunder on realistic mode and other simulators etc.
So no Space Marine for me. Punching Grots for health made me not look beyond the cover.
Its a pity because I am very good at FPS games too. Back when i used to play them.
It isn't actually a FPS.
The punching grots for health thing is okay if you remember that it is there because they decided that representing your toughness via active mitigation/regeneration is more exciting gamewise than a fixed health bar.
Never really played Halo, but referring to your post, I guess it is a Rosarius-equivalent. Rosarius. We have tons of them. Marines have Iron Halo or stuff like that. And they steal our rosarius too .
The former is an Iron Halo, the latter is a Halo shield.
While possibly similar in effectiveness, I think the differences are distinctive.
The Spacemarine campaign was good up until Chaos showed up. It would have been believable with Titus and his veterans slaughtering orks, especially simce they never really arrived with hordes larger than 300. But when the daemons and chais marines showed up thats when it lossed it fluffiness. Still one of the best and funnest games I ever played.
If you havent seen it, you should definitely watch totalbiscuit on youtube doing some Spacemarine gameplay. He was pretty hilarious.
The problem with the CSM in that game was that they were slow and dumb. Insufficient AI.
If they only had fought as actively as the player does, they would have been perfect!
You and I gotta play Space Marine sometime, Swasta.
Do you have it? And do you have the Chaos DLC?
No sorry. I am not a fan of FPS games. I didnt mind rising storm and play mount and blade nepolionics a lot. But I play games like civ 3 or war thunder on realistic mode and other simulators etc.
So no Space Marine for me. Punching Grots for health made me not look beyond the cover.
Its a pity because I am very good at FPS games too. Back when i used to play them.
It isn't actually a FPS.
The punching grots for health thing is okay if you remember that it is there because they decided that representing your toughness via active mitigation/regeneration is more exciting gamewise than a fixed health bar.
Never really played Halo, but referring to your post, I guess it is a Rosarius-equivalent. Rosarius. We have tons of them. Marines have Iron Halo or stuff like that. And they steal our rosarius too .
The former is an Iron Halo, the latter is a Halo shield.
While possibly similar in effectiveness, I think the differences are distinctive.
The Spacemarine campaign was good up until Chaos showed up. It would have been believable with Titus and his veterans slaughtering orks, especially simce they never really arrived with hordes larger than 300. But when the daemons and chais marines showed up thats when it lossed it fluffiness. Still one of the best and funnest games I ever played.
If you havent seen it, you should definitely watch totalbiscuit on youtube doing some Spacemarine gameplay. He was pretty hilarious.
The problem with the CSM in that game was that they were slow and dumb. Insufficient AI.
If they only had fought as actively as the player does, they would have been perfect!
What would have been really fun was playing titus charging into a ginormous horde of orks or chaos marines with his entire company of marines. The carnage would have been too awesome to bear
This is the kind of gridmark stuff 40k needs. Down to earth suckyness.
There is plenty of this! Siege of Vraks is a good example, Xaphan's men fighting the Korps should be to your taste.
I prefer the epic duel between CSM and SM, two demigods of war striking each other with blows that would tear up tanks, Guardsmen & Cultists swarming around them, but keeping the distance from their huge allies!
And you know the best thing with 40K?
It can fit both of our preferences! In the same battle no less!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really don't get why people say supermighty Marines would be bad storywise. Superman is far stronger and it is entirely possible to write good stories about him. A barebones example of a story I would like: We put a few humans in the actual main roles, having a Marine accompany them for some parts of the story. We explore how the Marine views the humans and his own ascension, how he wants to protect all the small people who are so much weaker than he is, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't save all of them. Looking at how they feel about the question if they are truly human.
Besides, who can fail to smile when that scene happens? You know which one I am talking about. The scene when the humans have almost completed their mission but are cornered by the huge ugly Ork, their weapons seemingly having no effect on him. He is about to cut them all down with his huge axe, a vicious grin on his face, when a big armoured hand knocks on his shoulder, and when he turns around he is hurled aside like yesterday's garbage. I agree it would be bad if said scene basically summed up the entire movie, but it is just awesome if it is used once or twice, and the Guardsmen helping him out in turn (Say, a heretical squad of Lascannon teams have pinned down the Marine, and the humans help out their big friend by surprising the heretics from another angle.)
I'd actually prefer Marines in a supporting role storywise, with humans as the main protagonists. It just fits them better.
See Sydney's story about SoB going shopping with a Marine. That was just gold.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/05 01:50:14
Never really played Halo, but referring to your post, I guess it is a Rosarius-equivalent. Rosarius. We have tons of them. Marines have Iron Halo or stuff like that. And they steal our rosarius too .
The former is an Iron Halo, the latter is a Halo shield.
While possibly similar in effectiveness, I think the differences are distinctive.
Well, the only difference I see is the shape of the shield, and that is only from one video game, so I would not be surprised if studio illustrator and sculptor do it differently in the future.
Been playing Painkiller these days. It is a quite old-school FPS where you butcher through endless hordes of daemons in various creepy environment using cool weapons like the awesome stakegun that will pin smaller enemies to the wall behind them. It is one of the most metal games out there. It is not 40k, but maybe you would like it, Ashi .
Ashiraya wrote: I really don't get why people say supermighty Marines would be bad storywise. Superman is far stronger and it is entirely possible to write good stories about him.
Not everyone likes Superman, and he is very ill-fitted for very grimdark stuff. He is quite often referred to as “the boy scout” after all. Batman is a bit more grimdark. And then you have Punisher .
Guess which one is my favorite.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Yeah. and he has the “unlimited riches and magic-like technology” superpower. But he was not my favorite . Which, I admit, has tons and tons of plot armor, but apart from that, no power.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
This is the kind of gridmark stuff 40k needs. Down to earth suckyness.
There is plenty of this! Siege of Vraks is a good example, Xaphan's men fighting the Korps should be to your taste.
I prefer the epic duel between CSM and SM, two demigods of war striking each other with blows that would tear up tanks, Guardsmen & Cultists swarming around them, but keeping the distance from their huge allies!
And you know the best thing with 40K?
It can fit both of our preferences! In the same battle no less!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really don't get why people say supermighty Marines would be bad storywise. Superman is far stronger and it is entirely possible to write good stories about him. A barebones example of a story I would like: We put a few humans in the actual main roles, having a Marine accompany them for some parts of the story. We explore how the Marine views the humans and his own ascension, how he wants to protect all the small people who are so much weaker than he is, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't save all of them. Looking at how they feel about the question if they are truly human.
Besides, who can fail to smile when that scene happens? You know which one I am talking about. The scene when the humans have almost completed their mission but are cornered by the huge ugly Ork, their weapons seemingly having no effect on him. He is about to cut them all down with his huge axe, a vicious grin on his face, when a big armoured hand knocks on his shoulder, and when he turns around he is hurled aside like yesterday's garbage. I agree it would be bad if said scene basically summed up the entire movie, but it is just awesome if it is used once or twice, and the Guardsmen helping him out in turn (Say, a heretical squad of Lascannon teams have pinned down the Marine, and the humans help out their big friend by surprising the heretics from another angle.)
I'd actually prefer Marines in a supporting role storywise, with humans as the main protagonists. It just fits them better.
See Sydney's story about SoB going shopping with a Marine. That was just gold.
I know, which frankly is the reason i have my army.
I prefer the stories about the realities of whats going on. Like iwo jima was a great movie in that respect. It really shed light on the hardships (men dying of dysentery, starvation, propaganda, home life etc). I want my 40k to be informative and open peoples eyes to things they wouldnt think about. 40k is very distant from the emotions and problems real people would face. Such as disease, survival, training and so forth. Full metal jacket had an amazing first half. Or even things like the winter soldier documentaries from 1972. Stuff that makes you think (well made me think anyway).
Just some actual depth to it would be great. Instead of a codex about the human struggle, I get some shoddy half written vague stories about ridiculous things that have had little thought put behind them.
To me Space Marines are the opposite of this. They are like superman. I hated Super Man.
Now I watched watchmen a few weeks ago. There is a glowing blue guy who is somewhat invincible (not sure on the back story of those super heroes). He has all these abilities and powers that no one else has. Yet he is struggling internally and has lost touch with the world and does so much damage etc. That movie is a good example of how marines should be done. They should be intelligent but messed up. Loose touch with reality, and actually posses skills that are needed. A necessary evil to posses in order to protect humans etc.
Instead we have generic bland killy kill kill men who do dumb things for no real reason and the only bad they can do is go to chaos. They dont even battle with emotion. Its a brick with arms that kills.
Which makes me question them all the time.
I am ranting. I just think Space Marines are one of the worst offenders when it comes to preventing the fluff from becoming very good. They are unique, I just dont think they are unique in a good way.
the current fluff is very childish to put it bluntly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 02:11:05
Blue guy is Dr Manhattan.
Have you seen the movie “Yesterday's enemy”? I think you should like it.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Yeah. 1959. Saw it at some B-movie session from the Cinematheque française. Did not expect much more than your usual B-movie, but damn I was surprised.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
This is the kind of gridmark stuff 40k needs. Down to earth suckyness.
There is plenty of this! Siege of Vraks is a good example, Xaphan's men fighting the Korps should be to your taste.
I prefer the epic duel between CSM and SM, two demigods of war striking each other with blows that would tear up tanks, Guardsmen & Cultists swarming around them, but keeping the distance from their huge allies!
And you know the best thing with 40K?
It can fit both of our preferences! In the same battle no less!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really don't get why people say supermighty Marines would be bad storywise. Superman is far stronger and it is entirely possible to write good stories about him. A barebones example of a story I would like: We put a few humans in the actual main roles, having a Marine accompany them for some parts of the story. We explore how the Marine views the humans and his own ascension, how he wants to protect all the small people who are so much weaker than he is, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't save all of them. Looking at how they feel about the question if they are truly human.
Besides, who can fail to smile when that scene happens? You know which one I am talking about. The scene when the humans have almost completed their mission but are cornered by the huge ugly Ork, their weapons seemingly having no effect on him. He is about to cut them all down with his huge axe, a vicious grin on his face, when a big armoured hand knocks on his shoulder, and when he turns around he is hurled aside like yesterday's garbage. I agree it would be bad if said scene basically summed up the entire movie, but it is just awesome if it is used once or twice, and the Guardsmen helping him out in turn (Say, a heretical squad of Lascannon teams have pinned down the Marine, and the humans help out their big friend by surprising the heretics from another angle.)
I'd actually prefer Marines in a supporting role storywise, with humans as the main protagonists. It just fits them better.
See Sydney's story about SoB going shopping with a Marine. That was just gold.
I know, which frankly is the reason i have my army.
I prefer the stories about the realities of whats going on. Like iwo jima was a great movie in that respect. It really shed light on the hardships (men dying of dysentery, starvation, propaganda, home life etc). I want my 40k to be informative and open peoples eyes to things they wouldnt think about. 40k is very distant from the emotions and problems real people would face. Such as disease, survival, training and so forth. Full metal jacket had an amazing first half. Or even things like the winter soldier documentaries from 1972. Stuff that makes you think (well made me think anyway).
Just some actual depth to it would be great. Instead of a codex about the human struggle, I get some shoddy half written vague stories about ridiculous things that have had little thought put behind them.
To me Space Marines are the opposite of this. They are like superman. I hated Super Man.
Now I watched watchmen a few weeks ago. There is a glowing blue guy who is somewhat invincible (not sure on the back story of those super heroes). He has all these abilities and powers that no one else has. Yet he is struggling internally and has lost touch with the world and does so much damage etc. That movie is a good example of how marines should be done. They should be intelligent but messed up. Loose touch with reality, and actually posses skills that are needed. A necessary evil to posses in order to protect humans etc.
Instead we have generic bland killy kill kill men who do dumb things for no real reason and the only bad they can do is go to chaos. They dont even battle with emotion. Its a brick with arms that kills.
Which makes me question them all the time.
I am ranting. I just think Space Marines are one of the worst offenders when it comes to preventing the fluff from becoming very good. They are unique, I just dont think they are unique in a good way.
the current fluff is very childish to put it bluntly.
Bad writing is not something I blame on Marines.
It's not like IG are consistently well written, either, if you truly sit on your 3rd ed codex as the serene island in the lava sea.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 02:23:04
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yeah. 1959. Saw it at some B-movie session from the Cinematheque française. Did not expect much more than your usual B-movie, but damn I was surprised.
Alright, i'll give it a shot.
and ashiriya, I dont read IG books either. the 3rd edition book has this amazing passage about some farmer in the Guard who is writing a letter to his family describing how he views things. Some of its blacked out by the guys at the military censor office, but boy it was awesome. I will find it tonight and put it up, but thats the kind of stuff I wanna read. It made me buy an army of peasant farmers with little training because of that. I know have WW1 guard in the making. That one passage has made it impossible to read any other guard codex without being bored. It set the bar too high.
Ashiraya wrote: Starship Troopers, from what I have seen in the films, are basically Guardsmen.
Ah, there's the misunderstanding. The films are very different from the book.
The novel is essentially Heinlein preaching about social duties and noble service to one's country, but he did his research and presents a realistic space military with elite soldiers in advanced power armor dropping from orbit and crushing the hardest targets. A soldier in the book is essentially a Tau crisis suit with tactical nukes.
The movies are a parody of the book, especially Heinlein's social commentary. The soldiers in the movies are pretty much guardsmen, complete with mindless human wave attacks as their default strategy, and the military as a whole is completely incompetent. This concept was completely invented by the people who made the movies, and has nothing to do with the book.
I have never argued that Marines should tank Titan shots (That is Primarch territory) but certainly tank shots.
Which is almost as bad. The shock from a direct hit from a tank cannon would reduce the marine inside the armor to a bloody puddle even if the armor itself isn't breached (much like the solution to an armored knight was often to just hit them with a hammer until they're dead, not to try to cut through the armor). And it also brings up the question of why marines bother with Rhinos, if the tank's armor is so much less durable than the marines inside it. Surely the better approach in that case would be to strap the marines to the outside of the Rhino and use them for extra armor!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: We explore how the Marine views the humans and his own ascension, how he wants to protect all the small people who are so much weaker than he is, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't save all of them. Looking at how they feel about the question if they are truly human.
The problem is that's not how GW wrote space marines. They don't struggle with how to relate to humanity, they're rabid attack dogs that you point in the general direction of something you want smashed and then stand back and watch the slaughter. I mean, GW's idea of "nice guy marines" is mentioning that a chapter doesn't consider their human allies to be completely expendable, unlike those other chapters who will happily use an IG regiment as suicidal bait or shell a refugee camp as long as it kills the enemy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 04:14:47
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ashiraya wrote: Starship Troopers, from what I have seen in the films, are basically Guardsmen.
Ah, there's the misunderstanding. The films are very different from the book.
The novel is essentially Heinlein preaching about social duties and noble service to one's country, but he did his research and presents a realistic space military with elite soldiers in advanced power armor dropping from orbit and crushing the hardest targets. A soldier in the book is essentially a Tau crisis suit with tactical nukes.
The movies are a parody of the book, especially Heinlein's social commentary. The soldiers in the movies are pretty much guardsmen, complete with mindless human wave attacks as their default strategy, and the military as a whole is completely incompetent. This concept was completely invented by the people who made the movies, and has nothing to do with the book.
I have never argued that Marines should tank Titan shots (That is Primarch territory) but certainly tank shots.
Which is almost as bad. The shock from a direct hit from a tank cannon would reduce the marine inside the armor to a bloody puddle even if the armor itself isn't breached (much like the solution to an armored knight was often to just hit them with a hammer until they're dead, not to try to cut through the armor). And it also brings up the question of why marines bother with Rhinos, if the tank's armor is so much less durable than the marines inside it. Surely the better approach in that case would be to strap the marines to the outside of the Rhino and use them for extra armor!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: We explore how the Marine views the humans and his own ascension, how he wants to protect all the small people who are so much weaker than he is, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't save all of them. Looking at how they feel about the question if they are truly human.
The problem is that's not how GW wrote space marines. They don't struggle with how to relate to humanity, they're rabid attack dogs that you point in the general direction of something you want smashed and then stand back and watch the slaughter. I mean, GW's idea of "nice guy marines" is mentioning that a chapter doesn't consider their human allies to be completely expendable, unlike those other chapters who will happily use an IG regiment as suicidal bait or shell a refugee camp as long as it kills the enemy.
Oh, the troopers in the movie fething sucked.
SM armour isn't that indestructible. One krak missile can easily kill a marine. Hot shot lasguns can kill marines outright with 5+ hits to the chest, maybe fewer depending on the accuracy.
With this being said, power armour is quite capable of being breached and it doesn't compare to an IG tank but it is still superior to most other armors. That's why I hate when people talk about marines walking out into a firestorm of missiles and gunfire and turning out completely fine. Marines are taught from the most basic level of training as a scout to properly make use of cover. Sternguard vets are scary as gak because added with their amazing armour, tactical finesse and ranged accuracy, they are experts at utilizing cover.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 07:39:40
One reason to have space marines is cause of their unfaltering loyalty and resilience.
If you send guard into a forest full of Lictors they'll stain their pants, run around like headless chickens and get eaten alive. Send marines in and they'll yell FOR THE EMPORER and only the last one might happen.
If you send guard against someone like Tau they're just as likely to join them as fight them. I don't think Marines would do that.
"That's how a Luna Wolf fights."
"If you can't keep up, go and join the Death Guard"
"It had often been said that Space Marines knew no fear, but when Angron charged, he ran"
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
"That's how a Luna Wolf fights."
"If you can't keep up, go and join the Death Guard"
"It had often been said that Space Marines knew no fear, but when Angron charged, he ran"
Teleporting the object makes more sense than "energy barrier". Space Magic is not a good reason. Its a lazy reason. Thats all.
[/spoiler]
Never heard of anybody drowning in mud.
Do some reading then... Horrible way to die really. I have seen videos of soldiers trapped in mud and its not easy to get them out. Having heavy gear needed for war and the only real cover provided by watery craters on some fronts = lots of drowning.
'Teleporting the object makes more sense than "energy barrier".'
Shooting a wall deflects bullets, right?
They basically have a weak, see-through wall around them made of hardlight. It absorbs the energy from the bullets to stop it getting to the person underneath, but it can only compensate for so much energy absorption, so eventually it runs out until it has a chance to recharge.
Make sense?
Teleporting the object makes more sense than "energy barrier". Space Magic is not a good reason. Its a lazy reason. Thats all.
Never heard of anybody drowning in mud.
Do some reading then... Horrible way to die really. I have seen videos of soldiers trapped in mud and its not easy to get them out. Having heavy gear needed for war and the only real cover provided by watery craters on some fronts = lots of drowning.
'Teleporting the object makes more sense than "energy barrier".'
Shooting a wall deflects bullets, right?[/spoiler]
They basically have a weak, see-through wall around them made of hardlight. It absorbs the energy from the bullets to stop it getting to the person underneath, but it can only compensate for so much energy absorption, so eventually it runs out until it has a chance to recharge.
Make sense?
From here below is my reply. Coding is messed up haha.
No, it cannot work. Shooting a wall at a weird angle can deflect bullets, or bullet fragments. But usually the bullets go right through depending on the speed, angle and material etc.
It makes no sense. None whatsoever. Give me an example of real life energy being made to physically stop something. I doubt you will find something.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/05 23:12:51
It simply absorbs the energy of the bullet, and the bullet drops to the ground, that's simply it. Lacking kinetic energy a bullet is not dangerous, the shield just drains the kinetic energy before it gets to the user.
Bullets penetrate a lot of things. They also bounce around a lot. Contrary to video game physics a bullet can bounce around multiple people and fragment doing damage to those around the target. Depends on many things.
Not really. Most bullets tend to shatter when striking a solid object like a brick wall. They might abrade someone standing very close to the point of impact, but this is not a serious injury. Now, if the surface struck is very thin, like drywall, then the bullet will (in most cases) penetrate right through it and then hit anyone standing in the line of fire on the other side, and can then cause serious injury or kill, but that's a pretty specific set of circumstances. Also depends on the round itself. A pistol round, and most rifle rounds, are too small to have enough mass to shatter into lethal shards when they hit something solid. The 20mm round fired by an autocannon is a different story entirely.
Bullet-deflection and injuries caused by said deflections, especially to a victim who was not the intended target, are exceptionally rare. Also depends on the caliber and type of round being fired, and what they are fired by.
Also, bullets don't penetrate much that is designed to be resistant to bullets. An aluminum or fibre-glass car door is not such an object and, so, yes, bullets tend to punch right through them (they are used as cover in the hope that the shot will strike obliquely, thus deflecting or losing velocity passing through the door, to reduce lethality). Against a few millimeters of steel, brick, stone, packed earth (18" will stop all known small arms rounds forever), and other armoring materials, bullets don't do so hot. In fact, a bullet-proof jacket may stop the bullet itself from entering your body completely... but it might not stop the transfer of kinetic energy to your body, which can cause serious injury or death.
Really, have you read the report of the shooting in tasmania. Its a good example of how deadly bullets are.
I heard the housing in middle eastern countries and walls over there are great at stopping bullets because of the materials. But it depends on many things.
Some bullets shatter on impact, but yes I fired a 22 at a car door to show someone how bullets work and it went right through. Hiding behind it would be worse as the bullet would change direction and enter awkwardly. It would also bring fragments causing more damage.
Bullets are crazy.
Ehm that article isn't proving what you're suggesting it does...
Almost all of the shooting victims were killed by close-range fire from an assault-class rifle, while some victims were shot multiple times.
Those who were struck by bullet fragments survived their injuries. These fragments were from the bullets exiting the bodies of those who had been the intended targets (who were slain). Most of the people he killed were victims of close-range head shots from an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle. Most of the victims were killed with a single shot, while some were killed due to the round passing through the first target and exiting cleanly, then killing the second victim. This is a known issue with the early models of the AR-15 and M-16 both, which is why later models would include the "tumble" effect, which greatly increased lethality while reducing bullet pass-through.
All this article really proves is that a person armed with military hardware, sufficient ammunition, and both the desire and the will to kill a large number of unarmed civilians is extremely capable of doing so when they are trapped in a building with him. Of course bullets are very lethal, they're *designed* to be! An assault rifle isn't designed to wing you, it's intended to kill you freakin' stone dead quickly and efficiently.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Being hit by fragments is far better than being hit by a whole bullet for these reasons;
Fragments are fragments for a reason, they've hit something and partially lost energy, so they're not going to go as deep and will carry less of a punch.
Bullets make horrible exit holes, if a bullet goes into you and goes through you're a dead man, if a fragment goes into you and goes through you (not that it really would) it'd be a far smaller hole, and you'd have more of a chance of survival.
Bullets make horrible exit holes, if a bullet goes into you and goes through you're a dead man, if a fragment goes into you and goes through you (not that it really would) it'd be a far smaller hole, and you'd have more of a chance of survival.
Not always. In fact, in the early days of the M16, the round would frequently enter-and-exit so quickly that it wouldn't deform (part of the problem with a copper-jacketed slug). This would lead to US servicemen reporting that Viet Cong and NVA soldiers shot by the M16 did not realize they'd been shot, sometimes for several minutes, due to combat stress and adrenaline.
This lead to the "tumble effect" being incorporated into the ballistic profile of later M16s, which greatly increased the lethality of the weapon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/06 00:47:38
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
What's with bulletholes here? It's not like Stub guns are common in the AM/IG and Bolters uses bolter rounds (huge-arse explosive shells with varying lethality depending on situations.)
I do like the fact that the incompetence of the Imperial Bureaucracy is constantly being reinforced to the fluff (the age-old misplaced Munitorum files and all), to justify having a small autonomous elite force spread across the Imperium to quickly fill the vacuum between invasion and Imperial reinforcements via bypassing the bureaucracy. I'm not sayin' it ain't got no problems, isolation and independence may lead to higher rate of deviation. But that's just part of the deal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/06 15:11:47
BrotherOfBone wrote: Bullets make horrible exit holes, if a bullet goes into you and goes through you're a dead man, if a fragment goes into you and goes through you (not that it really would) it'd be a far smaller hole, and you'd have more of a chance of survival.
Modern military small-caliber bullets are meant to wound, not kill outright (though a high spine hit, head hit or huge bleeding is usually exit). Why, you might ask? Because a wounded man needs help (bandages, medicine, a hospital) while a dead man can be used as an extra sandbag. A wounded man afraid to die saps morale far worse with his screaming than a silent dead guy ever can. And it takes two healthy men to get the one wounded man out.
If a guy with a bullet wound (or several) makes it to a proper hospital he's got something like a 90% chance to live. Not life without problems, perhaps, but life anyway. People can be killed by the smallest thing but we're also very resilient if it didn't kill immediately.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/07 05:27:36
... getting OT here, but it's actually a violation of the Geneva Conventions to design a weapon that is simply crippling, or that would, by design, leave crippling injuries (one reason they ban incendiary weapons).
The tactical application of wounding shots is correct, as you described...
... but that's not how the weapons are designed.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
.
.
.
. Which, I admit, has tons and tons of plot armor, but apart from that, no power.
