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.

Melevolence wrote:
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)

Some of them it actually works out fine. For example, the FW Basilisk/Medusa/Griffon/Minotaur all have full interior detail, including shell storage. The FW LRBT (slightly smaller gun, longer hull) would probably work out ok, especially if you assume that the gun is a bit exaggerated compared to the "real" tank to be visible at tabletop distance. The Predator is actually a reasonable tank by 40k standards and would probably work just fine with a human crew.

Or how the model can even fore bullets from a gun with no hole in the barrell

Davor wrote:

 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

My collection of official Sororitas models leads me to believe that they consider helmets to be completely optional. I think more of my infantry aren't wearing their helmets than are wearing their helmets.

 Rismonite wrote:
Or how the model can even fore bullets from a gun with no hole in the barrell

This is why you always drill out your barrels, and a model isn't finished until you do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Or how the model can even fore bullets from a gun with no hole in the barrell

This is why you always drill out your barrels, and a model isn't finished until you do.

I used to do that for my Space Marines.

Now some of my bolters are missing most of the left side of their muzzles. Because my drill did not go in perfectly straight.

I would try to drill the barrels on my armies, but I tend to get horrible hand spams when I try to do real finicky work like that, so I'd probably maul a whole bunch of models before I decided to give up

 Pouncey wrote:

 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.

Thats kinda missing the point

To be fair the ork and eldar examples actually do work. Many people assume the bulbous head of the EML is the warhead but the discription actually says that the warheads are fired out of the little slits in the head and that the EML is specifically designed to do away with the need to reload during battle.

As far the ork one goes. an ork only needs to reload when they believe they need to reload, and will only run out of rokkits when they believe they have.

 Zaku212 wrote:
Always imagined space marines keeping mags in their thigh armour a la robocop style. But am sure that's faaaar from Canon

NEW HEADCANON CONFIRMED

Can we address the fascination in all science fiction games with rotary firearms, such as "assault cannons" and various other mini-guns.

Multiple barrel systems exist to keep a barrel from overheating under constant fire (ie. getting barrel droop, a red-hot barrel etc. --- the same physics which require automatic weapon teams to carry spare barrels for light machine guns etc.).

So, why do so many science fiction figures carry miniguns when they have a very limited amount of ammunition (particularly large ammunition if we're to believe the fluff). Some are okay, such as large vehicles where we can imagine several thousand rounds of ammo.

But a Terminator with a small box of ammo on the bottom of the assault cannon? No need for the rotary system at all. He has but 1-3 seconds worth of holding the trigger and he's out. Even external mounted aircraft cannon (such as the tubular add-on to the F-4 Phantom) only gave you around 3-5 seconds of trigger time before running dry.

Some silliness abounds.

 Elbows wrote:
Can we address the fascination in all science fiction games with rotary firearms, such as "assault cannons" and various other mini-guns.

Multiple barrel systems exist to keep a barrel from overheating under constant fire (ie. getting barrel droop, a red-hot barrel etc. --- the same physics which require automatic weapon teams to carry spare barrels for light machine guns etc.).

So, why do so many science fiction figures carry miniguns when they have a very limited amount of ammunition (particularly large ammunition if we're to believe the fluff). Some are okay, such as large vehicles where we can imagine several thousand rounds of ammo.

But a Terminator with a small box of ammo on the bottom of the assault cannon? No need for the rotary system at all. He has but 1-3 seconds worth of holding the trigger and he's out. Even external mounted aircraft cannon (such as the tubular add-on to the F-4 Phantom) only gave you around 3-5 seconds of trigger time before running dry.

Some silliness abounds.

Rule of cool, bro

 Elbows wrote:
Can we address the fascination in all science fiction games with rotary firearms, such as "assault cannons" and various other mini-guns.

Multiple barrel systems exist to keep a barrel from overheating under constant fire (ie. getting barrel droop, a red-hot barrel etc. --- the same physics which require automatic weapon teams to carry spare barrels for light machine guns etc.).

So, why do so many science fiction figures carry miniguns when they have a very limited amount of ammunition (particularly large ammunition if we're to believe the fluff). Some are okay, such as large vehicles where we can imagine several thousand rounds of ammo.

But a Terminator with a small box of ammo on the bottom of the assault cannon? No need for the rotary system at all. He has but 1-3 seconds worth of holding the trigger and he's out. Even external mounted aircraft cannon (such as the tubular add-on to the F-4 Phantom) only gave you around 3-5 seconds of trigger time before running dry.

Some silliness abounds.

To be fair, the rate of fire can be manipulated in a gatling system from super slow to ridiculously fast. Hardly worth the justification but what is in this game?

Vehicles for 40K probably run off the same sort of micro fuel cells that space marine power armor do, so I can see not modeling fuel tanks onto the various vehicles (though one would wonder why rhinos an leman russes have smokestacks).

Here's another thought for you - in a world where the basic imperium soldier is equipped with a laser gun, why are the marines using ballistic weapons instead of up-powered laser rifles (like hotshot lasguns)? They could concievably hook up into the power source that powers their armor to run them as well.

 Stormonu wrote:
Vehicles for 40K probably run off the same sort of micro fuel cells that space marine power armor do, so I can see not modeling fuel tanks onto the various vehicles (though one would wonder why rhinos an leman russes have smokestacks).

Here's another thought for you - in a world where the basic imperium soldier is equipped with a laser gun, why are the marines using ballistic weapons instead of up-powered laser rifles (like hotshot lasguns)? They could concievably hook up into the power source that powers their armor to run them as well.

Actually most imperial vehicles are designed for multiple fuels.

or really, they have a bio engine that can basically run on any organic material, it then gets converted into electricity to power electric motors. the rhino also can go full electric and can power each individual tracks independently iirc.

i recall that being an actual thing in one of the books.

as for LASERS! vs ballistic weapons, lasers are effected by atmosphere, dust and stuff, bolters IIRC can do some crazy stuff like auto targeting and things. also marines are shock troops so want things blowing up from the inside out, instead of poking holes in them. especially orks and the likes. but this is a thing that is discussed often.

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

I'd argue those particular heads look feminine. If they were helmeted (or had masculine heads) and you didn't have a 'sisters' expectation in mind I could easily see them passing for generic scifi troops of any gender.

 Stormonu wrote:
Vehicles for 40K probably run off the same sort of micro fuel cells that space marine power armor do, so I can see not modeling fuel tanks onto the various vehicles (though one would wonder why rhinos an leman russes have smokestacks).

Rhinos are designed to burn fuel to power multiple small External Combustion Engines, two of which are mounted in each track segment, each one has its own exhaust pipe. The ECEs turn generators to supply electrical power to the tracks and the vehicle systems. To go under water or in a vacuum, Rhinos run on batteries, and therefore have a much shorter range. The Imperial Guard vehicles use the same tech as Rhinos, just on a different layout and scale.

Here's another thought for you - in a world where the basic imperium soldier is equipped with a laser gun, why are the marines using ballistic weapons instead of up-powered laser rifles (like hotshot lasguns)? They could concievably hook up into the power source that powers their armor to run them as well.

Space Marines use to have lasguns and multilasers in 1st Ed. Technically, Bolters are for use in micro gravity because they suppose to be caseless and recoiless; unfortunately, no one told the artists! They keep drawing Boltguns with recoil and discarded casings.

SJ

I always thought that the Rhino had its engines within its track horns. One fore right, one fore left, one aft right and one aft left. The exhausts come out of the horns and the engine grills are on the horns and they are the only space left where you could conceivably fit an engine.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I always thought that the Rhino had its engines within its track horns. One fore right, one fore left, one aft right and one aft left. The exhausts come out of the horns and the engine grills are on the horns and they are the only space left where you could conceivably fit an engine.

That is exactly what I said.

SJ

Davor wrote:
if they had their helmets on, you wouldn't really see that they were women

You mean that the armour is doing its job?

Believe it or not, the purpose of wearing armour plating is to protect your body from enemy attack, not to inform your enemy of your physical sex.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Davor wrote:
if they had their helmets on, you wouldn't really see that they were women

You mean that the armour is doing its job?

Believe it or not, the purpose of wearing armour plating is to protect your body from enemy attack, not to inform your enemy of your physical sex.

Actually, in the SoB case, it rather is.
But to be exact, it is to inform you "allies" of the physical sex of the soldiers.


See, the IoM is a mess of organizations each trying to gain power at the expense of others while staying in the realm of "technically did nothing wrong"

So when the esscelary wanted to make an army that will answer directly to it, yet were under the law they could not have an army, they needed to be tricky.
Fortunatly, the exact wording of the rule was "may not have men at arms", so a sneaky lawyer-type member of the esscelary came with the brilliant idea of "no men at arms, nothing was said about women in arms", thus came the creation of a very obvious exploit army that was designed to make it clear beyond any doubt-the soldiers are female,so its technically legal.

And this is actually fluff cannon.

 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.

It's also a side-effect of the fact that 40K is largely 'Fantasy in Spaaaace!' rather than SciFi.

As such, male warriors tend to look like He-Man, and female warriors tend to look like magazine pinups. Armour in a setting like that isn't designed to be practical, it's designed to fit the aesthetic of the setting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:

Here's another thought for you - in a world where the basic imperium soldier is equipped with a laser gun, why are the marines using ballistic weapons instead of up-powered laser rifles (like hotshot lasguns)? They could concievably hook up into the power source that powers their armor to run them as well.

Shock and Awe.

The bolter isn't just a weapon, it's a symbol.

 insaniak wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

Here's another thought for you - in a world where the basic imperium soldier is equipped with a laser gun, why are the marines using ballistic weapons instead of up-powered laser rifles (like hotshot lasguns)? They could concievably hook up into the power source that powers their armor to run them as well.

Shock and Awe.

The bolter isn't just a weapon, it's a symbol.

Just to expand on this, the bolter represents a combination of high-technology (for the Imperium anyway) and brutality. In actuality, laser-based weapons are counter-intuitive. They cauterize the wound as soon as it's made. There is almost no chance of the target bleeding out, and there is actually a good chance of the target being able to continue the fight. Modern weapons, on the other hand, are designed to cause as much damage as possible to ensure the target is put out of commission immediately and permanently.

On the flip side with laser weaponry assuming theres no charge up and the shot it fired when you pull the trigger you wouldn't have to lead your shot on a moving target and won't have to worry about windage or drop over distance making troops much more accurate and also massively decreasing training time (bit like the shift from bows to muskets). An while cauterizing might stop someone bleeding out a damaged muscle/bone will struggle to move and a damaged organ probably won't work, electric shocks don't cause massive bleeding but still kill/disable.

ragnorack1 wrote:
On the flip side with laser weaponry assuming theres no charge up and the shot it fired when you pull the trigger you wouldn't have to lead your shot on a moving target and won't have to worry about windage or drop over distance making troops much more accurate and also massively decreasing training time (bit like the shift from bows to muskets). An while cauterizing might stop someone bleeding out a damaged muscle/bone will struggle to move and a damaged organ probably won't work, electric shocks don't cause massive bleeding but still kill/disable.

Well with Space Marines the training time and target leading aren't much of a factor.

Honestly I strive for WYSIWYG simply because I will eventually forget what they have, and play it wrong.