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.

So this is something I like to think about off and on about any TT game that uses figures to represent the battle.

We all know that WYSIWYG is very imporant for wargear, but the funny stuff is when the model cant possibly be carring the number of items that they use.

Case study #1 Melta Bombs - Yeah, your squad leader has been given this wonderous peice of wargear. You even modeled it onto the figure, for bonus points. And yet he has used Melta bombs 5 times in one game. Have you seen the size of a melta bomb, and its possible that he could potentially use 14 in one game. If he actually had a melta bomb for all those uses, he would have started out looking like he was wearing a kilt of metal cylinders.

Case study #2 Exorsist missiles. In a single game its potentially possible that it could shoot 42 missiles. Where does it keep all those potential shots? And unlike say Tau SMS systems that could possibly hold all four of its (heavy 4) shots in a single MERV style warhead, the fact that it could also potentially fire a single shot leaves the idea of multiple warheads not really on the table.

There are tons of these sort of examples, Ork buggies using rokkits, Eldar Missile launchers, etc. Lots of weapons as modeled only have one warhead with no clear ability to reload, yet fire many times over the course of the game.

Just fun things to think about, what are some of yours?

Are we going to address the fact that Space Marines don't carry spare magazines normally...and the comical bore size of their bolters mean their magazines would carry about 20 rounds each...

Or that ten marines can never fit into a rhino or drop pod

I always liked powerfist/ lightning claw chaos marine aspiring champions attention to throw grenades. Giant pneumatic fingers attempting to pull the pin on a little grenade to throw it at the enemy.

The older style Lightning claws still had fingers, but they were thick like powerfists, very small chance for small object manipulation like a grenade pin. Nor were the claws retractable. Pretty much the same goes for Ork powerclaws.

 Elbows wrote:
Are we going to address the fact that Space Marines don't carry spare magazines normally......

They would if people bothered gluing the pouches on...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jayden63 wrote:
The older style Lightning claws still had fingers, but they were thick like powerfists, very small chance for small object manipulation like a grenade pin. Nor were the claws retractable. Pretty much the same goes for Ork powerclaws.

Wasn't a problem back then, since only terminators could take lightning claws, and terminators couldn't use grenades unless they were equipped with an autolauncher...

The Taurox can have light anti-tank cannon mounted on the sides of the vehicle, with the weapon muzzles ending immediately behind the side hatches for occupants to enter/exit. This seems very dumb to me and they probably should've been mounted on the front of the vehicle.

Also the Taurox has treads, but none of the treads are long enough to cross the terrain gaps that treads exist for and they could've easily been replaced with wheels.

The Leman Russ' treads are designed in a way that would render it completely immobile if it sunk even a few inches into the ground under its own weight. The Chimaera and Land Raider are the same way.

Adepta Sororitas power armor has a pair of breasts molded into it which would be much too spacious for the likely cup sizes of the Sisters themselves (Adepta Sororitas are very physically fit and heavily muscled, which tends to make breasts smaller due to the lower-than-normal body fat). Sororitas power armor is much less thick than Astartes power armor.

A large portion of my Battle Sisters apparently go into battle without their helmets on, which seems like a very poor choice.

Many modelers opt to use the bare heads for their leader models, again, a poor choice as a leader's head is no more durable or less vulnerable than any of their subordinates.

A final point about the Taurox, whoever named it was likely executed for treason or defected to the Tau Empire later. They named it the "Tau rox!"

Where is the fuel held on Astartes flyers? Especially the transports?

They have big fuel hungry turbines and have hardly any space for fuel let alone the max troop carrying capacity.

 insaniak wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Are we going to address the fact that Space Marines don't carry spare magazines normally......

They would if people bothered gluing the pouches on...

Which wouldn't hold enough to last the battle unless there were more pouches than PA visible...

How does a bolter carry more than 5 rounds considering the size of the muzzle compared with the size of the magazine.

Battlecannon calibre looks more at home on a battleship than a tank.

Always imagined space marines keeping mags in their thigh armour a la robocop style. But am sure that's faaaar from Canon

 Jayden63 wrote:
So this is something I like to think about off and on about any TT game that uses figures to represent the battle.

We all know that WYSIWYG is very imporant for wargear, but the funny stuff is when the model cant possibly be carring the number of items that they use.

Case study #1 Melta Bombs - Yeah, your squad leader has been given this wonderous peice of wargear. You even modeled it onto the figure, for bonus points. And yet he has used Melta bombs 5 times in one game. Have you seen the size of a melta bomb, and its possible that he could potentially use 14 in one game. If he actually had a melta bomb for all those uses, he would have started out looking like he was wearing a kilt of metal cylinders.

Case study #2 Exorsist missiles. In a single game its potentially possible that it could shoot 42 missiles. Where does it keep all those potential shots? And unlike say Tau SMS systems that could possibly hold all four of its (heavy 4) shots in a single MERV style warhead, the fact that it could also potentially fire a single shot leaves the idea of multiple warheads not really on the table.

There are tons of these sort of examples, Ork buggies using rokkits, Eldar Missile launchers, etc. Lots of weapons as modeled only have one warhead with no clear ability to reload, yet fire many times over the course of the game.

Just fun things to think about, what are some of yours?

I personally, and a large amount of our local crew, would beg to differ on the importance of WYSIWYG. For tournaments...sure, I suppose. But I think the significance of it may be a little overblown. I feel as long as you distinguish the 'special' models in a way that we can both clearly tell (marking their base, putting a little counter/token on them) etc, then I'm more than Ok with non WYSIWYG play.

As long as GW tends to refuse putting enough special weapons in the boxes to allow for WYSIWYG to become more accessible, then I'll be more on board with how 'important' it is. Can't really get mad at someone who doesn't have the extra cash to buy uneccesary extra boxes of models to get extra bits, or scour ebay for over priced second hand bits just to be 'WYSIWYG compliant'.

That rant aside, yeah some wargear just is silly in scope to try to model. But like all of 40k, it's over the top and gameplay has to sacrifice something in terms of visuals to make the game function. It is a game, after all.

Some funny things to think about for me though:

Like with any vehicle, where do they keep all their extra rounds/shells? Artillery for example. How many shells/rounds can they possibly have on hand per unit? Unless they have an unseen supplier who runs in more ammo for them when they run out. As for tanks and the like...again, how many shells can possibly fit IN ADDITION to having big armored men inside the vehicle with them. (in the case of Marine vehicles, ala Predator/Vindicators)

Orks...where do they keep their extra belts/clips/magazines of ammo for their guns? Especially shootas/big shoota that are supposed to mow through ammo like mad...or Lootas for that matter! Do they just will more ammo into existence!? At least with Ork Stikkbombs, they have backpacks full of em (on older models anyway) to justify multiple uses. As for Tankbustas...I don't wanna know where they keep those extra bombs.

Remember the Orks use psychic power to create/function darn near everything...maybe they're mentally generating ammo as they go (or firing a lot of psychic blanks which would explain the poor ballistic skill).

It is one thing I've found interesting going back and painting up my 2nd edition Eldar --- the miniatures have a lot of "junk" on them including huge pouches for the rotary magazines of the shuriken catapults.

The Demolisher for the IG would make more sense if it had a crane and an ammo-tractor towed behind it much like real massive assault guns. The Leman Russ could definitely have done with a slightly small barrel...

In regards to Big Shoota ammo, doesn't the current Boyz kit with the plastic Big Shoota parts also come with a backpack brimming with ammo? Or am I remembering something else entirely?

 BoomWolf wrote:
Or that ten marines can never fit into a rhino or drop pod

Close enough!

Ugh yes, the Leman Russ series need smaller barrels and they also need bigger turrets. With the current turret ring size you can fit about one bod within the turret.

Pouncey wrote:
Adepta Sororitas power armor has a pair of breasts molded into it which would be much too spacious for the likely cup sizes of the Sisters themselves (Adepta Sororitas are very physically fit and heavily muscled, which tends to make breasts smaller due to the lower-than-normal body fat). Sororitas power armor is much less thick than Astartes power armor.

I think it's suppose to be like the Blood Angels having abs and nipples. Just for show and no purpose.

Case study #1 Melta Bombs - Yeah, your squad leader has been given this wonderous peice of wargear. You even modeled it onto the figure, for bonus points. And yet he has used Melta bombs 5 times in one game. Have you seen the size of a melta bomb, and its possible that he could potentially use 14 in one game. If he actually had a melta bomb for all those uses, he would have started out looking like he was wearing a kilt of metal cylinders.

It's reusable. In the grimdark of the future, go green or go home!

Case study #2 Exorsist missiles. In a single game its potentially possible that it could shoot 42 missiles. Where does it keep all those potential shots? And unlike say Tau SMS systems that could possibly hold all four of its (heavy 4) shots in a single MERV style warhead, the fact that it could also potentially fire a single shot leaves the idea of multiple warheads not really on the table.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso&autoplay=1

SJ

Davor wrote:

Pouncey wrote:
Adepta Sororitas power armor has a pair of breasts molded into it which would be much too spacious for the likely cup sizes of the Sisters themselves (Adepta Sororitas are very physically fit and heavily muscled, which tends to make breasts smaller due to the lower-than-normal body fat). Sororitas power armor is much less thick than Astartes power armor.

I think it's suppose to be like the Blood Angels having abs and nipples. Just for show and no purpose.

That makes sense. They're an all-female army who are only allowed to exist as a fighting force because they're exclusively female. Displaying femininity would make a lot of sense, and boobs are one of the most noticeable differences between male and female humans. Well, ones who are fully clothed, anyways.

I think feminine sculpted armor is one of those conceits that makes no sense (anyway you slice it) in-game. It's only in existence for a marketing purpose. Specifically, if you're selling an army on the notion that it's an all-female army, the conventional thought is that they need to read as female at a tabletop distance. This requires that secondary sex characteristics (including differences in shapes of the waist, hips, and bust) be readily apparent.

 Jayden63 wrote:
So this is something I like to think about off and on about any TT game that uses figures to represent the battle.

We all know that WYSIWYG is very imporant for wargear, but the funny stuff is when the model cant possibly be carring the number of items that they use.

Case study #1 Melta Bombs - Yeah, your squad leader has been given this wonderous peice of wargear. You even modeled it onto the figure, for bonus points. And yet he has used Melta bombs 5 times in one game. Have you seen the size of a melta bomb, and its possible that he could potentially use 14 in one game. If he actually had a melta bomb for all those uses, he would have started out looking like he was wearing a kilt of metal cylinders.

Case study #2 Exorsist missiles. In a single game its potentially possible that it could shoot 42 missiles. Where does it keep all those potential shots? And unlike say Tau SMS systems that could possibly hold all four of its (heavy 4) shots in a single MERV style warhead, the fact that it could also potentially fire a single shot leaves the idea of multiple warheads not really on the table.

There are tons of these sort of examples, Ork buggies using rokkits, Eldar Missile launchers, etc. Lots of weapons as modeled only have one warhead with no clear ability to reload, yet fire many times over the course of the game.

Just fun things to think about, what are some of yours?

Its probably because the game is an abstraction.

i dont think gw every really wrote out how long a game turn is so a marine shooting bolters could be 10 seconds to 10 minutes long. all in the mean time there would be non combatants running around, re arming reloading, and taking away the dead or injured, and probably looting all the things.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think feminine sculpted armor is one of those conceits that makes no sense (anyway you slice it) in-game. It's only in existence for a marketing purpose. Specifically, if you're selling an army on the notion that it's an all-female army, the conventional thought is that they need to read as female at a tabletop distance. This requires that secondary sex characteristics (including differences in shapes of the waist, hips, and bust) be readily apparent.

This also makes sense and is probably the correct explanation.

Desubot, you reminded me of how bizarre the aircraft are. I mean, imagine a real non-hovering aircraft maneuvering over the battlefield as WH40k aircraft do on the tabletop. That would be the most bizarre feat of aerial acrobatics imaginable and would probably break the laws of physics.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think feminine sculpted armor is one of those conceits that makes no sense (anyway you slice it) in-game. It's only in existence for a marketing purpose. Specifically, if you're selling an army on the notion that it's an all-female army, the conventional thought is that they need to read as female at a tabletop distance. This requires that secondary sex characteristics (including differences in shapes of the waist, hips, and bust) be readily apparent.

This also makes sense and is probably the correct explanation.

Desubot, you reminded me of how bizarre the aircraft are. I mean, imagine a real non-hovering aircraft maneuvering over the battlefield as WH40k aircraft do on the tabletop. That would be the most bizarre feat of aerial acrobatics imaginable and would probably break the laws of physics.

You mean like the flying brick mechanics?

Yeah the game is 100% abstract.

you are supposed to create a cinematic scene where the flyer is doing some crazy hair pin turns, civilians are running screaming and there is smoke and warp everywhere.

but its not really feasible to do out side a computer.

 Desubot wrote:
You mean like the flying brick mechanics?

Yeah the game is 100% abstract.

you are supposed to create a cinematic scene where the flyer is doing some crazy hair pin turns, civilians are running screaming and there is smoke and warp everywhere.

but its not really feasible to do out side a computer.

Just want to mention that Warhammer 40k video games are not exactly rare.

Jimsolo wrote:I think feminine sculpted armor is one of those conceits that makes no sense (anyway you slice it) in-game. It's only in existence for a marketing purpose. Specifically, if you're selling an army on the notion that it's an all-female army, the conventional thought is that they need to read as female at a tabletop distance. This requires that secondary sex characteristics (including differences in shapes of the waist, hips, and bust) be readily apparent.

Well having boob armour at least makes the army more female or feminine. Forget about real life and how it's not functional. Just take a look at Storm Cast Eternals. They can be an all female army but would anyone see it as it? No I believe we would think of it as all males. I can't speak for females here, but maybe they can say something. Is having boob army make the army more feminine if you want an female army instead of a male army?

Davor wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:I think feminine sculpted armor is one of those conceits that makes no sense (anyway you slice it) in-game. It's only in existence for a marketing purpose. Specifically, if you're selling an army on the notion that it's an all-female army, the conventional thought is that they need to read as female at a tabletop distance. This requires that secondary sex characteristics (including differences in shapes of the waist, hips, and bust) be readily apparent.

Well having boob armour at least makes the army more female or feminine. Forget about real life and how it's not functional. Just take a look at Storm Cast Eternals. They can be an all female army but would anyone see it as it? No I believe we would think of it as all males. I can't speak for females here, but maybe they can say something. Is having boob army make the army more feminine if you want an female army instead of a male army?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/693677.page#8715963

These Sororitas stand-ins look quite feminine to me, without a single instance of boobplate.

Hahaha, I think of this stuff often when playing around with lists and gameplay in general. Funny thread.

It actually does make me envision what a single turn/action would actually look like in reality though. A movement phase for example - 6" actually equates to 5+ minutes of cautiously advancing, perhaps keeping low, scanning the horizon for threats, doing basic gear checks with some banter about what's going on in that factory 500 yards off, etc.

Somehow I don't think space marines cautiously advance anywhere. Relying in their armor they probably just walk shoulder to shoulder laying down a carpet of bolter fire as they advance.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Somehow I don't think space marines cautiously advance anywhere. Relying in their armor they probably just walk shoulder to shoulder laying down a carpet of bolter fire as they advance.

Depending on the author, they may be laying down their carpet of bolter fire while dodging return fire because "Astartes reflexes."

 Pouncey wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/693677.page#8715963

These Sororitas stand-ins look quite feminine to me, without a single instance of boobplate.

Fair enough, but how about female Storm Cast Eternals? Problem with the link you gave is, if they had their helmets on, you wouldn't really see that they were women