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.

Necrons don't use spears or axes. LotR is a low-fantasy medieval setting, a game based on the setting has different needs than one based on 40k because 40k is a science-fantasy setting.

Necrons do use cannons and rifles, but you're focussing too much on the game and not enough on the fluff if you think they can use the same rules as the rifles for other factions. 40k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change. We can't just pretend how great it'd be if Space Marines had two kinds of weapons, maybe grav and bolt, AM could have las and beam and then those two could apply to 10 different profiles to create a decent variety of guns that'd be easy for your opponent to learn and give a good amount of design space for the faction, that's just not where the game is at in my opinion. I'd love to see it done well for a 40k faction.

rifle, carbine, shotgun, machine gun, sniper, pistol, cannon, mortar, rocket launcher, blade, fist, shield. Add a heavy, long-barreled and armour-piercing for double strength, 6" of extra range and an extra AP respectively and you might be able to cover most things. It might work if you were designing a new game from the ground up. But at that point you should talk to the designers of Maelstrom's Edge.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters,

It's there, I'm simply talking from a mindset of consolidating the Intercessor and Tactical profiles

What weapon profiles would you have them use?

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters,

It's there, I'm simply talking from a mindset of consolidating the Intercessor and Tactical profiles

What weapon profiles would you have them use?

I'd go with the following profiles:
24" AP-1 Rapid Fire 1 D1
18" AP-0 Assault 3 D1
30" AP-2 Heavy 1 D2

Basically I just want to cut off the ranges due to the creep on that end cutting into other armies as well. Then 1 Special or Heavy at 5, and +1 Special and +1 Heavy at 10 to encourage larger squads.

The Intecessor is basically the perfect step on what a Marine profile should feel like since forever, so it should be used as the basis of the "Tactical Marine" with some fixing.

Then again nobody cares about homebrew rules so I'll never complete my fandex LOL

Writing a fandex involves a lot of tedium for sure, a lot of it is just copy-pasting and formatting. If you just want to design you can do it a lot simpler by making a wish-list with design commentary.

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

Or, you can have a set of Core Rules that allows for the effective differentiation of things like lascannons, missile launchers, and plasma cannons. Or just continue the "streamlining" slide into a glorified board game......

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or, you can have a set of Core Rules that allows for the effective differentiation of things like lascannons, missile launchers, and plasma cannons. Or just continue the "streamlining" slide into a glorified board game......

That's effectively impossible because there aren't enough battlefield roles to support every existing weapon type. And I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 40k is a streamlined game when it's really the exact opposite: a bloated pile of nonsense that tries to substitute sheer volume of rules text and convoluted mechanics for actual strategic depth, hoping you'll be too busy trying to figure out how everything works to notice that it's all just dozens of different ways of writing "your unit does 20% more damage".

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Or, you can have a set of Core Rules that allows for the effective differentiation of things like lascannons, missile launchers, and plasma cannons. Or just continue the "streamlining" slide into a glorified board game......

That's effectively impossible because there aren't enough battlefield roles to support every existing weapon type. And I find it hilarious that anyone could think that 40k is a streamlined game when it's really the exact opposite: a bloated pile of nonsense that tries to substitute sheer volume of rules text and convoluted mechanics for actual strategic depth, hoping you'll be too busy trying to figure out how everything works to notice that it's all just dozens of different ways of writing "your unit does 20% more damage".

All of that "bloat" and "convoluted mechanics" is because of the "streamlining" of the Core Rules, as the design team tries to make up for the lack of depth in them by adding more "depth" (actually just "bloat", as you described) back in the codexes. A more comprehensive set of Core Rules would support those additional battlefield roles. We're not in disagreement about current 40k, Aecus. It just seems that I want to fix it, and you just want to roll with the punches.

 vict0988 wrote:
Writing a fandex involves a lot of tedium for sure, a lot of it is just copy-pasting and formatting. If you just want to design you can do it a lot simpler by making a wish-list with design commentary.

I'm fine with tedium because my whole life is tedium tasks. It's just that it's for nothing in the end LOL

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All of that "bloat" and "convoluted mechanics" is because of the "streamlining" of the Core Rules, as the design team tries to make up for the lack of depth in them by adding more "depth" (actually just "bloat", as you described) back in the codexes. A more comprehensive set of Core Rules would support those additional battlefield roles. We're not in disagreement about current 40k, Aecus. It just seems that I want to fix it, and you just want to roll with the punches.

Then I'm confused about what you're asking for. If you improve the core rules to add depth and remove the "need" to obscure bad core rules with rules bloat in everything else then you also remove the need to over-differentiate between different weapon options. The game is now about, for example, how to best use your anti-tank guns instead of optimizing your choices between plasma/missiles/lascannons as anti-tank options. The list building choice is a simple one between anti-tank, anti-personnel, or indirect fire for a heavy weapon and each option can be represented by multiple aesthetic choices on the model. Same thing with melee weapons. The choice is "should my character pay for an upgraded melee weapon", not making a spreadsheet to calculate damage against a range of targets and decide if +2S and -1AP is better than +1S and -2AP. Just combine everything into a single "power weapon" profile that you can choose to model as a sword or axe or whatever depending on what you think looks cool.


And when I say there aren't enough roles for each weapon I'm talking about conceptual roles within battlefield strategy in general, not within the very limited scope of 9th edition's stripped down core rules.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
All of that "bloat" and "convoluted mechanics" is because of the "streamlining" of the Core Rules, as the design team tries to make up for the lack of depth in them by adding more "depth" (actually just "bloat", as you described) back in the codexes. A more comprehensive set of Core Rules would support those additional battlefield roles. We're not in disagreement about current 40k, Aecus. It just seems that I want to fix it, and you just want to roll with the punches.

Then I'm confused about what you're asking for. If you improve the core rules to add depth and remove the "need" to obscure bad core rules with rules bloat in everything else then you also remove the need to over-differentiate between different weapon options. The game is now about, for example, how to best use your anti-tank guns instead of optimizing your choices between plasma/missiles/lascannons as anti-tank options. The list building choice is a simple one between anti-tank, anti-personnel, or indirect fire for a heavy weapon and each option can be represented by multiple aesthetic choices on the model. Same thing with melee weapons. The choice is "should my character pay for an upgraded melee weapon", not making a spreadsheet to calculate damage against a range of targets and decide if +2S and -1AP is better than +1S and -2AP. Just combine everything into a single "power weapon" profile that you can choose to model as a sword or axe or whatever depending on what you think looks cool.


And when I say there aren't enough roles for each weapon I'm talking about conceptual roles within battlefield strategy in general, not within the very limited scope of 9th edition's stripped down core rules.

Better Core Rules would allow each weapon to have a better defined "niche". In HH, lascannons rule over the other two examples in AT duties, but missile launchers provide both Pinning, and AA fire, both of which are not things that current 40k provides for, and makes them "jacks of all trades". If you go for pure lascannons, you're giving up flexibility for straight AT power.

Not really disagreed on power weapons. As long as things like thunder hammers, chainfists, and lightning claws remain distinct from "standard" power weapons.

And, again, I fully agree that there enough room for each weapon in 9th's "stripped down Core Rules". It's those stripped down Core Rules that I have a problem with.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Better Core Rules would allow each weapon to have a better defined "niche". In HH, lascannons rule over the other two examples in AT duties, but missile launchers provide both Pinning, and AA fire, both of which are not things that current 40k provides for, and makes them "jacks of all trades". If you go for pure lascannons, you're giving up flexibility for straight AT power.

But how does that translate to on-table play? Let's take missile launchers as the reference, since obviously there's a lot of value in a multi-role weapon. How does swapping my missiles for lascannons change how that unit plays on the table? Do missiles and lascannons engage vehicles differently, or is just that lascannons are X% better at the job and you have to weigh the value of X% vs. an alternative that is Y% better at some other task in the list building phase? From what I've seen even when frag/AA missiles aren't so weak that they aren't worth considering all that happens is you swing the choice from lascannons to missile spam and the unit plays the same way whichever one you take.

And ok, maybe this one example can work in a better game. But then there's stuff like guard Chimeras, where you have a choice between a heavy bolter or multilaser, two weapons with the same concept of "anti-infantry heavy weapon". Which one is favored because it has better dice math varies over the years but whichever one has better dice math usually makes the other obsolete. So combine the options and let Chimeras pick between "gun" or "flamer", the two weapons that actually play differently.

Not really disagreed on power weapons. As long as things like thunder hammers, chainfists, and lightning claws remain distinct from "standard" power weapons.

I agree that it might be reasonable to split them between "power weapon" and "heavy power weapon", especially if GW brought back something like the old initiative system where a power fist was more damage at the expense of possibly dying before you could swing instead of just straight +X% damage for +Y points.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Better Core Rules would allow each weapon to have a better defined "niche". In HH, lascannons rule over the other two examples in AT duties, but missile launchers provide both Pinning, and AA fire, both of which are not things that current 40k provides for, and makes them "jacks of all trades". If you go for pure lascannons, you're giving up flexibility for straight AT power.

But how does that translate to on-table play? Let's take missile launchers as the reference, since obviously there's a lot of value in a multi-role weapon. How does swapping my missiles for lascannons change how that unit plays on the table? Do missiles and lascannons engage vehicles differently, or is just that lascannons are X% better at the job and you have to weigh the value of X% vs. an alternative that is Y% better at some other task in the list building phase? From what I've seen even when frag/AA missiles aren't so weak that they aren't worth considering all that happens is you swing the choice from lascannons to missile spam and the unit plays the same way whichever one you take.

And ok, maybe this one example can work in a better game. But then there's stuff like guard Chimeras, where you have a choice between a heavy bolter or multilaser, two weapons with the same concept of "anti-infantry heavy weapon". Which one is favored because it has better dice math varies over the years but whichever one has better dice math usually makes the other obsolete. So combine the options and let Chimeras pick between "gun" or "flamer", the two weapons that actually play differently.

Not really disagreed on power weapons. As long as things like thunder hammers, chainfists, and lightning claws remain distinct from "standard" power weapons.

I agree that it might be reasonable to split them between "power weapon" and "heavy power weapon", especially if GW brought back something like the old initiative system where a power fist was more damage at the expense of possibly dying before you could swing instead of just straight +X% damage for +Y points.

I don't know enough about heavy bolters vs multi-lasers in the Guard Codex to make a comment about that.

What I do know, is that there's enough difference between lascannons and missile launchers in HH 2.0 to make them a meaningful choice, depending on army build and planned tactics.

And, again, agreed on power weapons. Bringing back Initiative is one of the things that I love about HH.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed. What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with? RF 1 S5 AP-2 D1 and Ass 2 S5 AP- D1 6s to hit explode into 2 bonus hits, is that a heavy bolter and three boltguns? If I wanted to just play using the SM weapons from 5th edition I'd make a firstborn SM list.

first post was kinda hard to read and understand but i'd like power fist, power weapon, and force weapons back. power and force weapons 1 profile for each, but can be modeled as any melee weapon and you don't have to worry about it.

 vict0988 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed. What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with? RF 1 S5 AP-2 D1 and Ass 2 S5 AP- D1 6s to hit explode into 2 bonus hits, is that a heavy bolter and three boltguns? If I wanted to just play using the SM weapons from 5th edition I'd make a firstborn SM list.

You could replace a lot of the bloat with USR and FactionSR, as long as profiles are easy to read I actually do not think weapons are where a big amount of the bloat comes from. With the bolt weapons being more unique issue.

I would be fine with tanks given rules to fire weapons multi times, or with heavy capacity. Out of 40k this is how a lot of systems handle them.
GW has rather chosen to make them platforms with weapons covering them, and still writing lots of profiles for imperium weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
0k factions have sprawling miniature ranges from a long history with already existing names that you'd have to ignore or change.

You don't have to ignore them, you just have to get rid of GW's ridiculous design philosophy that every decorative bit needs to have special rules attached to it. A unit can have an "anti-tank gun" rules-wise and it can be represented by a lascannon or missile launcher or plasma cannon on the model along with whatever lore you want to have for that model.

If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed. What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with? RF 1 S5 AP-2 D1 and Ass 2 S5 AP- D1 6s to hit explode into 2 bonus hits, is that a heavy bolter and three boltguns? If I wanted to just play using the SM weapons from 5th edition I'd make a firstborn SM list.

They don't need 2 options out the other side, that's kind of the point.

As an example and to double down on the fact gauss is meant to be good at armour stripping, amend as needed to your own head wishes:

Warriors could go to rapid fire 1 18" s4 ap-2 d1
Immortals go to assault 2 24" s5 ap-2 d1 with an extra shot at 12".

Apple fox wrote:


You could replace a lot of the bloat

I think we should start by reducing the use of the word "bloat". Rules we do not like are not automatically "bloat" and using that word for the negative connotations will tend to put people on the defensive when it's used on rules they do like.

with USR and FactionSR, as long as profiles are easy to read I actually do not think weapons are where a big amount of the bloat comes from. With the bolt weapons being more unique issue.

I'd like to see more USR - with FactionSR modifying the USR. i.e. Deep Strike is the USR - while Teleport Strike is the FactionSR that modifies it i.e. Deep Strike not within 9, Teleport Strike is Deep Strike but Not Within 6" for example and/or available on Turn 1 for half the units etc.
Most/All factions have some access to each of the USR (barring one or here and there two totally out of flavor), but each faction has a FactionSR that leans into the USR(s) they're more familiar with. Some TauSuits/AeldariStuff with Fleet/Advance, White Scars and GSC with Scout Moves, or Reserves on alternative board edges I can't remember the name of the rule right now. Envelopment or some such. And on and one. The USR should be meh to good- Faction SR should be Good to Better-but-not-broken.

I would be fine with tanks given rules to fire weapons multi times, or with heavy capacity. Out of 40k this is how a lot of systems handle them.
GW has rather chosen to make them platforms with weapons covering them, and still writing lots of profiles for imperium weapons.

 Lord_Valorion wrote:
Why stop at weapons? Why not with datasheets? Everyone gets 5 Datasheets.

*Sigh* I only wish.

I know appealing to the fluff is largely pointless at this late date, but I have to wonder how one can justify the monolithic and ultra-conformist Imperium having such a vast range of specialized small arms?

Think of the ammo supply issues with all of those variants. Time was, the big difference between chapters was tweaks to organization and doctrine/philosophy. You had the vanilla Ultramarines and then various alternate takes based on history, the founder's weird and wacky gifts, homeworld, etc.

At the core, though, the chapters had a high incidence of interoperability. If Ultras were running low on ammo, the reinforcing Dark Angles could resupply them. With all these weird flavors of bolter, how is that possible? If they all share the same cartridge, you really won't get that much difference in performance because mostly it's a question of barrel length. You could change the cyclic rate (or go select fire), but that won't effect terminal performance.

In addition, spare parts for all those different weapons would be a nightmare.

I guess one could say the same with the sprawling vehicle line, which is a complete reversal of the early "Look, there are exactly four (4) classes of AFV in the Imperium: Russ, Rhino, Chimera and Land Raider. That's it. Pick a chassis and make a variant."

Now it's like oil sheik's arms show from the 1970s, except all those strange and weird vehicles are owned by the same army.

Okay, I'll go back to yelling at clouds.

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

Who cares what the fluff says? The fluff says my conscripts have different patterns of lasgun but they don't need different rules, they're just cannon fodder. Some people even print guardsmen with AR-15s and call them lasguns because it's just a gun. So call it "Chimera heavy weapon" if rivet counting matters.

What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with?

Why do they need to replace? Just give them gauss with whatever profile is best, it's not like anyone ever takes the bad weapon when they have a choice.

What are Conscripts? Those aren't in the Space Marines codex, why would you use anything other than the Space Marines codex if you don't care about fluff? /sarcasm

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I know appealing to the fluff is largely pointless at this late date, but I have to wonder how one can justify the monolithic and ultra-conformist Imperium having such a vast range of specialized small arms?

Think of the ammo supply issues with all of those variants. Time was, the big difference between chapters was tweaks to organization and doctrine/philosophy. You had the vanilla Ultramarines and then various alternate takes based on history, the founder's weird and wacky gifts, homeworld, etc.

At the core, though, the chapters had a high incidence of interoperability. If Ultras were running low on ammo, the reinforcing Dark Angles could resupply them. With all these weird flavors of bolter, how is that possible? If they all share the same cartridge, you really won't get that much difference in performance because mostly it's a question of barrel length. You could change the cyclic rate (or go select fire), but that won't effect terminal performance.

In addition, spare parts for all those different weapons would be a nightmare.

I guess one could say the same with the sprawling vehicle line, which is a complete reversal of the early "Look, there are exactly four (4) classes of AFV in the Imperium: Russ, Rhino, Chimera and Land Raider. That's it. Pick a chassis and make a variant."

Now it's like oil sheik's arms show from the 1970s, except all those strange and weird vehicles are owned by the same army.

Okay, I'll go back to yelling at clouds.

It depends on the force in question. Most space marine gear *is* standardized, at least until the Primaris came around and any modifications are added later on. It helps most marine forces are self-sufficent as far as supply goes. Guard weapons aren’t as standardized but do all use the same power pack, solving that issue.


However, it isn’t entirely antithetical for a large empire like the imperium to have a lot variety in its equipment. The imperium, while large, is very fractal and relies on the Mechanicum for supplies and a layered response defense strategy. These combined means the imperium would rather have gear that could be produced locally, rather than a standardized pattern, especially since the Mechanicum forgeworlds don’t like sharing. It’s better for a planet to be able to supply itself and hold off an invader long enough for reinforcements to come by than for the whole to be perfectly standardized. Shorter, local supply lines are doubly important in a galaxy where shipping is reliant on going through the warp, and rarely are you able to predict the outcome of that.

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

In the fluff, Cadian lasguns are different from Death Korps lasguns are different from Vraksian autoguns, but they all get the same rules on the tabletop and nobody seems to think the game has failed because of this. A centuries-old ornate Marine bolt pistol the size of a small child and a mass-produced bolt pistol issued to every Commissar have the same exact stats. A heavy stubber's a heavy stubber whether it's a magazine-fed carriage-mounted Krieg gun or a man-portable machine gun for Cultists or a totally-not-space-M2.

I notice 40K players tend to get very attached to chrome; every distinction currently modeled is essential but all the ones that aren't modeled don't seem to be an issue.

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

In the fluff, Cadian lasguns are different from Death Korps lasguns are different from Vraksian autoguns, but they all get the same rules on the tabletop and nobody seems to think the game has failed because of this. A centuries-old ornate Marine bolt pistol the size of a small child and a mass-produced bolt pistol issued to every Commissar have the same exact stats. A heavy stubber's a heavy stubber whether it's a magazine-fed carriage-mounted Krieg gun or a man-portable machine gun for Cultists or a totally-not-space-M2.

I notice 40K players tend to get very attached to chrome; every distinction currently modeled is essential but all the ones that aren't modeled don't seem to be an issue.

You can put failure on a scale, is it just meh (representing Conscripts with the AM Infantry Squad datasheet), is it bad (using the AM Veterans datasheet) or is it awful (using the SM Scouts datasheet? You could also say the lasgun variant is factored into the sub-faction Stratagems and bonus, I did think the game failed to represent the different lasgun variants, which is why my AM fandex included lasgun variants. But not representing lasgun differences is a small downside and it adds a relatively large amount of bloat to have those rules, justifying its exclusion is much easier than justifying the exclusion of tesla carbines from the Necrons codex as one poster suggested. It might even be that the differences between lasguns aren't actually great enough to warrant using different stats anyhow, a bit like how Ultramarines Devastators and Blood Angels Devastators are more alike than they are different in my book and having different Chapter Tactics and a different Super Doctrine incentivises people to build unfluffy Flanderized SM lists. I'll also add that bolt pistol relics exist.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

Who cares what the fluff says? The fluff says my conscripts have different patterns of lasgun but they don't need different rules, they're just cannon fodder. Some people even print guardsmen with AR-15s and call them lasguns because it's just a gun. So call it "Chimera heavy weapon" if rivet counting matters.

What weapons do Immortals replace their gauss and tesla with?

Why do they need to replace? Just give them gauss with whatever profile is best, it's not like anyone ever takes the bad weapon when they have a choice.

autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns.

A heavy bolter and multilaser have two completely different stat lines.

That’s the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
If the rules says it's equipped with a heavy bolter but the model and the fluff says the model is equipped with a multilaser then the game has failed.

In the fluff, Cadian lasguns are different from Death Korps lasguns are different from Vraksian autoguns, but they all get the same rules on the tabletop and nobody seems to think the game has failed because of this. A centuries-old ornate Marine bolt pistol the size of a small child and a mass-produced bolt pistol issued to every Commissar have the same exact stats. A heavy stubber's a heavy stubber whether it's a magazine-fed carriage-mounted Krieg gun or a man-portable machine gun for Cultists or a totally-not-space-M2.

I notice 40K players tend to get very attached to chrome; every distinction currently modeled is essential but all the ones that aren't modeled don't seem to be an issue.

theyre physically different but they all are roughly the same in function and capability. Being a D6 based game you need pretty large variations between things to justify a differing stat…after all a marine is S4 while a guardsman is S3, despite the vast difference in strength.

A pistol grip vs straight stock, or an extra 2-6 inches of barrel length makes no practical difference in a lasgun.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
It depends on the force in question. Most space marine gear *is* standardized, at least until the Primaris came around and any modifications are added later on. It helps most marine forces are self-sufficent as far as supply goes. Guard weapons aren’t as standardized but do all use the same power pack, solving that issue.

No, that's an even bigger nightmare. A thousand chapters using a thousand slightly different variations of weaponry. It makes much more sense to say "okay, do the squads and paint jobs however turns you on, but all ammo is loaded to these exact specs."

Honestly, the obvious reason they'd all use the same ammo is the same reason they all use the same lasgun power packs: no one knows how to make anything else.

Where does all this innovation, weapons trials, etc. come from? The occupation of "weapons designer" does not and cannot exist because all weapons have already been invented. It's right there in the STC. The mechanicus wouldn't even know how to invent something.

However, it isn’t entirely antithetical for a large empire like the imperium to have a lot variety in its equipment. The imperium, while large, is very fractal and relies on the Mechanicum for supplies and a layered response defense strategy. These combined means the imperium would rather have gear that could be produced locally, rather than a standardized pattern, especially since the Mechanicum forgeworlds don’t like sharing. It’s better for a planet to be able to supply itself and hold off an invader long enough for reinforcements to come by than for the whole to be perfectly standardized. Shorter, local supply lines are doubly important in a galaxy where shipping is reliant on going through the warp, and rarely are you able to predict the outcome of that.

I get that the old fluff is being thrown away at an increasing rate, but the original concept of the Imperium was that it had zero innovation. None. Advances in technology were actually recovered fragments of STC constructs or incremental improvements in manufacturing.

The model of the Imperium is the Red Army - vast quantities of standardized weapons. In another thread we were looking up bolter fluff and according to the 2nd ed. Wargear book, bolt guns and bolt pistols use the exact same ammunition.

That's why the damage profile is the same. Boltguns get slightly longer range due to their longer barrels, but that's all that changes. Storm bolters have higher rates of fire, but same damage as pistols. This of course makes ammo supply a breeze.

I guess I have a question: What makes you all think the various different bolters have a different ammo? Maybe when the S changes its different but most of these variants probably use the same ammunition.

I mean you can, and some people specifically do get a Lever Action rifle in the same caliber as their revolver. You know like bolt pistols and bolters?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

or 2nd Orks. Way back in second Grots had Autoguns.

Breton wrote:
I guess I have a question: What makes you all think the various different bolters have a different ammo? Maybe when the S changes its different but most of these variants probably use the same ammunition.

I mean you can, and some people specifically do get a Lever Action rifle in the same caliber as their revolver. You know like bolt pistols and bolters?

The different performance characteristics indicate different ammo types. Yes, barrel length will change performance, but the big jump is between pistol and rifle. Whether a weapon is lever action or select-fire doesn't change that.