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 prefer the idea that the bolters are either the same model or, if not, at least cross compatible with ammunition. It would be very convenient if Marines who are leading/fighting with local Guardsmen or PDF could source ammunition from their stockpiles

I also don't think the Marine version has to be bigger, it's already been used better rules-wise with Marines getting fancy rules to denote their mastery of the weapon. I like that it's not a better version of bolter, it's just that Marines are better with it.

There is one primary reason that Marine bolters and human bolters are probably different. Hand size. Human hands and astartes hands are wildly different sizes so at the very least the grips and triggers on an Astartes bolter would need to be bigger. Likewise all of the manipulation points on the gun would need to be enlarged to allow their huge superhuman fingers to use the bolter.

The ammo is certainly the same, maybe even the magazines, but the size difference in hands alone would mandate that a human and astartes bolter would need to be different at least superficially. Even if it was only different pistol grips and enlarged bolt handles and magazine catches. But you'd probably also want to beef up the housing a bit, the marine might smack and xeno over the head with it. Maybe give it a heavier barrel for longevity. Perhaps even larger capacity magazines as standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
I always considered Vraks to be a rather unimportant battle in the grand scheme of 40k, so it's low numbers compared to IRL world-wide conflict don't bother me that much.

That said, on topic:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XbHmcRC7r1c

Here's a guy firing a .700 caliber rifle, just .05 small than a regular Bolt round, he seems to handle the kick rather well.

The seige of Vraks also did take place in a relatively small area of the planet. It wasn't the whole planet, just the immediate vicinity of the only notable location on the world itself. IIRC from the scale the entire war took place in an area the size of France or something.

Agreed with both of the above. Marines being able to casually wield as assault rifles what is more akin to a plasma, melta, or other bulky/heavy special weapon when carried by a Guardsman is plenty superhuman. The idea that they have to be extra powerful, so strong they'll kill a normal guy instantly, etc just sounds like spank.

I mean there's a lot of that sort of Marine spank in the BL novels, but it's still spank, and has never squared with the tabletop depictions. Having different controls to suit Marine armor but otherwise being the same underlying gun makes sense for a lot of reasons.

Anyways- apologies if I've missed it, but I don't think anyone mentioned the Inkunzi PAW 20mm grenade launcher. The caliber is within a couple millimeters of 0.75cal, and the velocity is significantly higher than conventional shoulder-fired grenade launchers, giving a ballistic profile closer to that of a rifle. Add a rocket assist and there's your bolter.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
I always considered Vraks to be a rather unimportant battle in the grand scheme of 40k, so it's low numbers compared to IRL world-wide conflict don't bother me that much.

That said, on topic:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XbHmcRC7r1c

Here's a guy firing a .700 caliber rifle, just .05 small than a regular Bolt round, he seems to handle the kick rather well.

The seige of Vraks also did take place in a relatively small area of the planet. It wasn't the whole planet, just the immediate vicinity of the only notable location on the world itself. IIRC from the scale the entire war took place in an area the size of France or something.

It did- most of the world was uninhabited, all of the pre-war population of 8 million lived in the area around the citadel and spaceport. The world was a fortified warehouse and had no significant industry beyond storing supplies for the Departmento Munitorum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Would that perhaps file under “you probably could, but due to the sheer size and weight of the gun and its kickback, not with anything approximating accuracy”?

I mean, if you’re struggling to life the gun in the first place, it seems unlikely you’d be able to adopt a proper firing stance with it. And yes you almost certainly could prop it up on something (say a handy flat topped low wall) which would allow initial aiming, but does nothing to help properly control the recoil.

I’m put in mind of the bit in Seagal’s only passable movie Under Siege, where Erika Eleniak tries to shoot what I think is a Mac10, only for it to buck right out her grip?

One of my favourite pieces of Guard art shows exactly this- a Guardsman firing a boltgun braced on a window sill. It is from Codex: Cityfight in 3rd edition (image spoilered):


Bracing guns does help with accuracy and recoil management. Incidentally, this chap is clearly blazing away on full auto given the number of casings flying out. His boltgun also has a stock, and he has one hand on the top of the weapon.

 catbarf wrote:
Agreed with both of the above. Marines being able to casually wield as assault rifles what is more akin to a plasma, melta, or other bulky/heavy special weapon when carried by a Guardsman is plenty superhuman. The idea that they have to be extra powerful, so strong they'll kill a normal guy instantly, etc just sounds like spank.

Which circles neatly around to those hyperbolic takes being akin to in-universe Fuddlore. Retold tales of the occasional dumb dumb or lightweight who fired a bolter wrong and got hurt being retold to him dying. Or the Munitorum officer telling a particularly stupid batch of recruits that "No they cannot have a bolter! And if they do somehow come across one they are to immediately surrender it to the depot because it will absolutely kill them if they try to use it!!!"

 Grey Templar wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Agreed with both of the above. Marines being able to casually wield as assault rifles what is more akin to a plasma, melta, or other bulky/heavy special weapon when carried by a Guardsman is plenty superhuman. The idea that they have to be extra powerful, so strong they'll kill a normal guy instantly, etc just sounds like spank.

Which circles neatly around to those hyperbolic takes being akin to in-universe Fuddlore. Retold tales of the occasional dumb dumb or lightweight who fired a bolter wrong and got hurt being retold to him dying. Or the Munitorum officer telling a particularly stupid batch of recruits that "No they cannot have a bolter! And if they do somehow come across one they are to immediately surrender it to the depot because it will absolutely kill them if they try to use it!!!"

Or just being executed by a particularly rabid commissar for not using their issued lasgun

Probably even executed by a bolt round as well.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Which circles neatly around to those hyperbolic takes being akin to in-universe Fuddlore. Retold tales of the occasional dumb dumb or lightweight who fired a bolter wrong and got hurt being retold to him dying. Or the Munitorum officer telling a particularly stupid batch of recruits that "No they cannot have a bolter! And if they do somehow come across one they are to immediately surrender it to the depot because it will absolutely kill them if they try to use it!!!"

Probably a prudent caution since, apparently, owning an Astartes bolt shell incurs a death penalty for citizens (as it's assumed you looted or stole it).

Even if the bolt shell is the same size as what the Guard use, Astartes-issue shells likely have their own manufacturing marks and other little differences to identify them (it would probably be smarter to have them be identical so they could share supply lines, but the Imperium isn't exactly famous for valuing logistical efficiency over pomp, prestige and superstition).

Marines would also likely have much greater access to specialized ammunition types.

The Guard puts a much greater priority on logistical simplification and field reliability, so ammunition that requires individual maintenance (exotic propellants, seeker heads, etc) is right out. It also isn't going to issue extremely rare and expensive rounds to grunts, and your average Guardsman who has to carry it probably doesn't want niche stuff cutting into his allotment of multipurpose mass-reactive.

Whereas Marines have access to whatever they need for the mission, or to have the right response to each potential threat, and are better capable of both carrying it and receiving rapid resupply in the field.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Probably a prudent caution since, apparently, owning an Astartes bolt shell incurs a death penalty for citizens (as it's assumed you looted or stole it).

Even if the bolt shell is the same size as what the Guard use, Astartes-issue shells likely have their own manufacturing marks and other little differences to identify them (it would probably be smarter to have them be identical so they could share supply lines, but the Imperium isn't exactly famous for valuing logistical efficiency over pomp, prestige and superstition).

What is the actual source of this death sentence nonsense?

Dark Heresy, which I already know you decided you don't like as a source (that's okay), but I was not replying to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: In the interest of the source argument not appearing repeatedly in future threads, I am just going to post this quote snapped from an interview with ADB (the interview was mostly about Black Library and is much longer, cut for brevity).

As it stands, the official line is that there are three factions empowered to “create IP” (an exact quote), and that’s GW, BL and FW. Given that the 40K RPG is mostly made by folks working in or around the main three companies, I think it’s fair to say that its lore counts as canon, too.
I got it wrong myself, right up until I was in a meeting with the company’s Intellectual Property Manager – a situation I find myself in several times a year, as part of the Horus Heresy novel series team. When I was specifically asking about canon, he replied with something I’ve tried to take to heart: “It’s all real, and [n]one of it’s real.”

I don't know how one'd rank all these sources' canonicity, if one was so inclined, but I trust this interview more than I do the opinions of anonymous forum posters, that's for sure. (No offence) So, while I might side with the main studio if they publish material contradicting Dark Heresy, I am not going to write off Dark Heresy as fanfiction. That seems very overkill.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Dark Heresy, which I already know you decided you don't like as a source (that's okay), but I was not replying to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: In the interest of the source argument not appearing repeatedly in future threads, I am just going to post this quote snapped from an interview with ADB (the interview was mostly about Black Library and is much longer, cut for brevity).

As it stands, the official line is that there are three factions empowered to “create IP” (an exact quote), and that’s GW, BL and FW. Given that the 40K RPG is mostly made by folks working in or around the main three companies, I think it’s fair to say that its lore counts as canon, too.
I got it wrong myself, right up until I was in a meeting with the company’s Intellectual Property Manager – a situation I find myself in several times a year, as part of the Horus Heresy novel series team. When I was specifically asking about canon, he replied with something I’ve tried to take to heart: “It’s all real, and [n]one of it’s real.”

I don't know how one'd rank all these sources' canonicity, if one was so inclined, but I trust this interview more than I do the opinions of anonymous forum posters, that's for sure. (No offence) So, while I might side with the main studio if they publish material contradicting Dark Heresy, I am not going to write off Dark Heresy as fanfiction. That seems very overkill.

Note how none of those official three factions empowered to create lore is FFG. It somehow counting is just ADBs personal opinion. And of course that licence has expired years ago, so I seriously doubt anyone at the GW now would consider it any sort of official or even close.

And I think effectively their lore does contradict GW lore. Like in this bolter example these special astartes bolters cannot be founf in any GW source, and there are plenty of places they could have been and logically would have been mentioned if they existed. The codexes do often tell about the weapons, and there indeed are several different kinds of bolt weapons and marks of bolter mentioned but this distinction is not.

GW lore is already a mess, but talking about it becomes even more difficult, if people keep dragging all sort of unofficial stuff into it.

 Crimson wrote:
And I think effectively their lore does contradict GW lore. Like in this bolter example these special astartes bolters cannot be founf in any GW source

This is not a contradiction and you know that perfectly well.

GW lore is already a mess, but talking about it becomes even more difficult, if people keep dragging all sort of unofficial stuff into it.

As ADB says, the people working on said FFG stuff tends to include employees from the big three.

Like, let's take the authors list for the Dark Heresy core book:

Dan Abnett
Gary Astleford
Owen Barnes
Alan Bligh
Ben Counter
Kate Flack
John French
Guy Haley
Andy Hall
Tim Huckelberry
Andrew Kenrick
Mark Latham
TS Luikart
Mike Mason
Chris Pramas
Rick Priestley

Who should I trust more to be a source and authority on Warhammer lore, these guys, or a forum poster who does not like Dark Heresy?

Again, no offence, but come on. If Rick Priestley isn't good enough then what's left of Warhammer at that point? And that's just one name on the list!

I’m gonna echo Ashiraya here.

Not liking Dark Heresy and other FFG stuff? No problemo.

But to extend that to “therefore nobody should treat it as a source” is going too far.

Dark Heresy was able to go into finer detail than any other GW product other than Inquisitor. And it ran with that. But not without centralised oversight.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
And I think effectively their lore does contradict GW lore. Like in this bolter example these special astartes bolters cannot be founf in any GW source

This is not a contraction and you know that perfectly well.

It is. "Well they didn't say they don't exist" is a copout. It is like if some fan fiction depicted all marines with little bunny tails, you could argue it is canon because the official lore doesn't say that they don't.
The GW lore does go into detail about bolter types and marks. If significant difference between astartes and non astartes bolters existed, it would have been mentioned. The Inquisitor, GW's semi-RPG with very detailed equipment does not mention this difference either.

As ADB says, the people working on said FFG stuff tends to include employees from the big three.

Who should I trust more to be a source and authority on Warhammer lore, these guys, or a forum poster who does not like Dark Heresy?

Again, no offence, but come on. If Rick Priestley isn't good enough then what's left of Warhammer at that point? And that's just one name on the list!

It is not about me liking it or not. I like a lot of stuff from the FFG RPGs. I just am not confused about what is official. And the exact quote from ABD you use to justify your position actually lists what is actually official, and the licenced stuff is not. Yes, Funko Pop space marine is not actually a canonical depiction of space marine proportions either. Shocking, I know.

And hell, Wrath & Glory, the later licenced 40K RPG does not have special astartes bolters either! (Apart the primaris weapons that also exist in the main 40K.) It is an anomaly created by FFG for their Deathwatch RPG, possibly due some game design quirk in their system that required giving marines better weapons. If the primaris fluff had existed back then, they would have just been bolt rifles.

 Crimson wrote:
It is. "Well they didn't say they don't exist" is a copout. It is like if some fan fiction depicted all marines with little bunny tails, you could argue it is canon because the official lore doesn't say that they don't.
The GW lore does go into detail about bolter types and marks. If significant difference between astartes and non astartes bolters existed, it would have been mentioned. The Inquisitor, GW's semi-RPG with very detailed equipment does not mention this difference either.

Or it has just not been relevant, because of the extreme rarity of a human having the opportunity to obtain a shell intended for the Astartes in the first place?

It is not about me liking it or not. I like a lot of stuff from the FFG RPGs. I just am not confused about what is official.

It is literally about you liking it or not, because this isn't a stance anyone but you is taking.

And the exact quote from ABD you use to justify your position actually lists what is actually official, and the licenced stuff is not. Yes, Funko Pop space marine is not actually a canonical depiction of space marine proportions either. Shocking, I know.

Setting aside that you ignore most of the quote by saying that, since the question of what is canon or not is very important for their wiki's function, perhaps it's prudent I link lexicanum's article on the matter (where I found the interview):

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Warhammer_40k_-_Lexicanum:Accepted_sources#Why_the_term_.22Canon.22_or_.22Canonicity.22_is_problematic

Beyond that though I think this side track has run its course, because if I say "I think Rick Priestley (in collaboration with the other people on that list, but his presence is especially telling) is someone with a good finger on the pulse of what 40k is and isn't and his written lore is a useful source" and you say "nuh uh, because I, Crimson, Forum Poster of Dakkadakka™, am the arbitrator of this and he has less authority than me" then I really think we've reached an impasse and nothing anyone could say could convince you. Like, it doesn't even have to be Dark Heresy. If a British newspaper interviewed a GW narrative designer, the journalist asked "by the way, was the Emperor personally present in WW1?" and the designer says "Oh yes, absolutely! But don't expect that to appear onscreen!" then I'd consider that a source. I am trusting the one who says it.

So, ultimately, I'll wish you a good day and remark that it's a shame this probably means we're not going to have many productive lore discussions in the future, since my understanding of the lore is based on the writings of GW staff rather than the selection of CrimsonCanon.

Though the discussion of Dark Heresy et all has highlighted a gap in my collection.

Cursory eBay search shows entirely reasonable prices. So that’s a new technically, because it’s OOP, Oldhammer project for me.

Again, not about who likes what. It is about official GW studio stuff and licenced stuff by third parties(regardless of who is writing it) being different. And I think a lot of official fluff is stupid too; these days significantly more so than any FFG stuff.

But it is like Star Wars. Most of Disney SW might be crap. (Or not, that's a matter of taste.) And George Lucas might muse about what other direction the story could have taken. Doesn't change the fact, that he not in charge any more and what Disney produces is the canon now.

And why do you think the Inquisitor does not mention this? It is same way detailed than the FFG RPGs. Or if as you think licenced products count, why Wrath and Glory does not mention it and why does that not count?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Though the discussion of Dark Heresy et all has highlighted a gap in my collection.

Cursory eBay search shows entirely reasonable prices. So that’s a new technically, because it’s OOP, Oldhammer project for me.

Ooh! Enjoy. I and my friends used to do a ton of tabletop RPGs before covid, I adored it. Rogue Trader (alongside the obvious Dungeons and Dragons) were our favourites, but we also dabbled in various others.

The writing and lore detail in those books is remarkable. It brings out a sort of nerdy joy I rarely experience. The Eisenhorn omnibus was another source of it - and Abnett was a co-author of Dark Heresy, no surprise! Eisenhorn practically defined what the Inquisition even is like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
But it is like Star Wars. Most of Disney SW might be crap. (Or not, that's a matter of taste.) And George Lucas might muse about what other direction the story could have taken. Doesn't change the fact, that he not in charge any more and what Disney produces is the canon now.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but it is very specifically and explicitly not like Star Wars and the interviews in the link I gave you explain that in great detail.

The FFG rpgs are absolutely fantastic. I still run campaigns in them to this day. And the books are great for just reading lore as well. And if you can't get physical books you can get PDFs easily as well.

I am of the opinion that any licensed 40k material is valid for canon purposes, at least as far as any canon claims can be had since GW doesn't have anything like official canon rulings. All material should be weighed against the rest when contradictions are found, so some obviously outdated and overridden stuff is non-canon(like Eldar/human hybrids).


And if someone says that Marine and Human bolters are different, that could still be true even if the ammo used is the same. The AUG and M4 are different guns, but use the same ammunition. Human vs Astartes bolters could easily be different in the same way. And if we only use logic and deduction that would make the most sense. Humans and Space Marines are very different in terms of how big their hands are, that alone would make manipulating the gun extremely difficult for one of them if human and astartes bolters were identical.

Unless the argument is that marines have hands the same size as normal humans...

 Ashiraya wrote:

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but it is very specifically and explicitly not like Star Wars and the interviews in the link I gave you explain that in great detail.

I know. It is more of a mess and GW does not really care about canon. That does not mean that stuff actually produced by the company and stuff produced by someone else would be on equal footing.

But again, I ask you this: why no other source mentions these different bolters, even though they go into detail about bolt weapons? Why the Inquisitor does not? Why Wrath and Glory does not? Like c'mon, you must see that it is an anomaly. RPGs before and after Deathwatch do not mention it. FFG books have a ton of interesting setting stuff, but this is just something that was made up for one game, Deathwatch, for game mechanical reasons.

 Crimson wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but it is very specifically and explicitly not like Star Wars and the interviews in the link I gave you explain that in great detail.

I know. It is more of a mess and GW does not really care about canon. That does not mean that stuff actually produced by the company and stuff produced by someone else would be on equal footing.

But again, I ask you this: why no other source mentions these different bolters, even though they go into detail about bolt weapons? Why the Inquisitor does not? Why Wrath and Glory does not? Like c'mon, you must see that it is an anomaly. RPGs before and after Deathwatch do not mention it. FFG books have a ton of interesting setting stuff, but this is just something that was made up for one game, Deathwatch, for game mechanical reasons.

An anomaly that can be explained by it not being relevant and the author not thinking about it.

The lack of other sources mentioning it when they theoretically could have is not automatically a contradiction. And we can use logic and deduction to think about it, and Logic dictates that there being different bolters meant for humans vs astartes just makes sense.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The FFG rpgs are absolutely fantastic. I still run campaigns in them to this day. And the books are great for just reading lore as well. And if you can't get physical books you can get PDFs easily as well.

I actually agree that they're great reading for the lore. (I find the system too fiddly and crunchy for my tasters though. I prefer my RPGs to be somewhat more rules light.)

I am of the opinion that any licensed 40k material is valid for canon purposes, at least as far as any canon claims can be had since GW doesn't have anything like official canon rulings. All material should be weighed against the rest when contradictions are found, so some obviously outdated and overridden stuff is non-canon(like Eldar/human hybrids).

But it doesn't say anywhere that eldar and humans cannot hybridise! But yeah, I agree with your stance, I just think that the astartes super bolters are a clear instance of such anomalous fluff that does not fit with the rest of the lore and this point quite outdated too. Though of course, the funny thing is that these days, it sorta is canon, it is just that these super astartes bolters are called bolt rifles! So basically we are arguing about the fictional history and designation of the astartes super bolters! What a bunch of nerds we are!

Aye, but Eldar and Humans would never even attempt to reproduce with each other so hybrids definitely don't exist. Plus there was that White Dwarf(which post-dates Mr Obi-wan Sherlock whats his name) which had Eldar reproduction details in it which basically makes any chance of breeding with humans impossible. TLDR Eldar require multiple sperm deposits at different pregnancy stages, have quad-helix DNA (as opposed to human double helix), and a bunch of other things so it is not happening even if someone contrived to attempt it.

 Crimson wrote:
I know. It is more of a mess and GW does not really care about canon. That does not mean that stuff actually produced by the company and stuff produced by someone else would be on equal footing.

I am going to be real with you, this idea that the RPGs are not canon is just not something most people are going to be interested in. GW has licenced it. GW has creative oversight. Hell, you get stories nowadays of how video game developers are asked to do XYZ by their fanbases but they admit they can't do it because GW wouldn't approve. This isn't some rogue element. This is people who are hands-on, people who are core to establishing vast swathes of the game's lore throughout the decades and often being core studio employees. There's just no point trying to create a fight here where there's none.

I sat here for like fifteen minutes writing a big long post to respond to the rest, but I don't think there's much of a point. As Yakface said at one point, you don't need to just reiterate the same thing over and over, eventually a debate can stand on its own.

Moving Swiftly On…..

Bolters, standard issue Bolters.

Is anyone aware of any depiction of such a weapon with a stock, outside of the plastic ones from 1st and 2nd Ed? Which was, due to modelling constraints, near universally clipped off before gluing it? The one that I think first debuted in the metal MkVII box, and continued right up to, maybe slightly beyond 2nd Ed, but definitely wasn’t included in the multipart Tactical Squad of 3rd Ed.

If memory serves the only other stock seen on a Bolter is a manky mangy maggoty wooden one on a Plague Marine?

Meltaguns and Plasmaguns have been depicted with stocks on Marine models (again the 2nd/3rd Ed one piece if you don’t count the back pack metal ones). But Bolters only rarely.

Which is weird, regardless of how easy it is for a Marine to shoot with in-helmet systems, a stock helps massively with stability and having a good firing position. Our LMGs have folding stocks and I remember how miserable it was to fire one with the stock folded up while standing up.

Having a stock for Guardsmen bolters just makes a ton of sense.

BTW, RPGs and wargames have different design priorities for weapons. In wargame you want of course have weapons with different battlefield roles, but it also is perfectly fine if some weapons are significantly better than others. It will just be reflected in the point cost.

In RPG you might have some small amount of "better weapons" so that the characters can be rewarded with better gear, but especially in a game about well equipped elites like Deathwatch, there is not that much need for that. Instead you want the different weapons to have different strengths and weaknesses, so that everyone doesn't just end up wit the same "best weapon." So that's why for example in 40K the plasma gun is just pretty much flat out better than a bolter, and not by small margin, whereas in Deathwatch RPG the choice is not so obvious as you want to have reason for the marines to keep using their iconic bolters.

And then the writers of each game will probably write some fluff that at least somewhat reflects how the weapons are used in the game. And the usage is different and as a result the fluff might be as well.

Stocks are irrelevant for marines as they have power armour and auto senses to provide stability and aim assist.

Necromunda bolters seem to have had stocks quite a bit through history, but Guard ones not so much.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Moving Swiftly On…..

Bolters, standard issue Bolters.

Is anyone aware of any depiction of such a weapon with a stock, outside of the plastic ones from 1st and 2nd Ed? Which was, due to modelling constraints, near universally clipped off before gluing it? The one that I think first debuted in the metal MkVII box, and continued right up to, maybe slightly beyond 2nd Ed, but definitely wasn’t included in the multipart Tactical Squad of 3rd Ed.

If memory serves the only other stock seen on a Bolter is a manky mangy maggoty wooden one on a Plague Marine?

Meltaguns and Plasmaguns have been depicted with stocks on Marine models (again the 2nd/3rd Ed one piece if you don’t count the back pack metal ones). But Bolters only rarely.

I posted one upthread:

Haighus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Would that perhaps file under “you probably could, but due to the sheer size and weight of the gun and its kickback, not with anything approximating accuracy”?

I mean, if you’re struggling to life the gun in the first place, it seems unlikely you’d be able to adopt a proper firing stance with it. And yes you almost certainly could prop it up on something (say a handy flat topped low wall) which would allow initial aiming, but does nothing to help properly control the recoil.

I’m put in mind of the bit in Seagal’s only passable movie Under Siege, where Erika Eleniak tries to shoot what I think is a Mac10, only for it to buck right out her grip?

One of my favourite pieces of Guard art shows exactly this- a Guardsman firing a boltgun braced on a window sill. It is from Codex: Cityfight in 3rd edition (image spoilered):

Spoiler:

Bracing guns does help with accuracy and recoil management. Incidentally, this chap is clearly blazing away on full auto given the number of casings flying out. His boltgun also has a stock, and he has one hand on the top of the weapon.

There are not a lot of Guard depictions of boltguns in general though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In terms of Guard models with boltguns, I don't think any have a stock.

The Cadian Castellan, plastic Krieg Sergeant, limited edition Catachan Sergeant, 5th edition plastic Catachan officer, 3rd edition Stormtrooper sergeant, 2nd edition Commissar and it's 3rd edition remake with a gas mask, and 2nd edition Catachan officer have boltguns without stocks. I can't think of any other Guard models with boltguns off the top of my head, although there might be another 2nd edition officer I am missing.

 Crimson wrote:
BTW, RPGs and wargames have different design priorities for weapons. In wargame you want of course have weapons with different battlefield roles, but it also is perfectly fine if some weapons are significantly better than others. It will just be reflected in the point cost.

In RPG you might have some small amount of "better weapons" so that the characters can be rewarded with better gear, but especially in a game about well equipped elites like Deathwatch, there is not that much need for that. Instead you want the different weapons to have different strengths and weaknesses, so that everyone doesn't just end up wit the same "best weapon." So that's why for example in 40K the plasma gun is just pretty much flat out better than a bolter, and not by small margin, whereas in Deathwatch RPG the choice is not so obvious as you want to have reason for the marines to keep using their iconic bolters.

And then the writers of each game will probably write some fluff that at least somewhat reflects how the weapons are used in the game. And the usage is different and as a result the fluff might be as well.

The core difference is that most RPG systems are collaborative storytelling games that use a rules set run through a living DM to process and moderate the game. Whilst players and DM can engage in (or get stuck in) Player VS DM mindsets; the fundamental core is that the RPG rules system is there as a foundation which can be tweaked; but which is ultimately not as worried about balance.


Wargames are inherently a PVP situation in almost the vast majority of cases; even narrative is still built around a PVP experience. So the rules and stats and points and all are, in theory, running without moderation and exist to provide a level playing field of mechanics for the two players to engage with as a measure of their own skill.


Under an RPG system you can have balance all over the place and a good DM can mitigate it somewhat. They can even go "actually Dave that combo you found that lets your lasgun kill a greater demon with one shot - I'm not allowing it cause it breaks the game immersion"
With a wargame such tricks are part of the mechanics and might form extensive debates online. They can be highly dividing, confusing or require updates to patch the stats for the game from the developers.