Heavy bolter Vs Assault Cannon

[Volt]

LOL oh man y'all take this so serious lol. Have you seen the size of a heavy bolter? 18-20mm rounds? I think not lol.

..Heavy bolters are 1.00 caliber. Which is 21mm. So yes, they are 18-20mm rounds.

 

 

So, if we're doing boosts to bolter AP, can Tau Pulse weapons get a -2 for being plasma weapons?

 

Actually applying how made up weapons are supposed to work in a fantasy setting to abstract dice mechanics works as well as the actual game system does. It's like saying my Rifts laser pistol that does 1d6 mega-damage is better than your lascannon because 40K is clearly an SDC setting as a normal IG troop could conceivably kill a SM with his rifle butt and clearly no supernatural strength. My laser pistol vaporizes your tank and my plastic man armor makes me immune to all your SDC attacks because they can't damage an MDC structure because even doing 100 points of SD that makes up 1 MDC does nothing to it. My Rogue Scholar kills all your Custodes.

 

Some other things to look at are that Bolters are reliable and accurate gyrojet weapons, two things gyrojets aren't known for. If IG armor was the equivalent of modern day anti-ballistic vests then it wouldn't be terribly useful in a big 40K melee fight as they wouldn't protect well against knives or bft. If you've had experience with a chainsaw, you will know that chainsaw swords are a dumb idea (not as bad as the DnD dire flail though.

Flak armor is pretty great stuff despite the 40k memes and in the lore (and mechanics too) can perform reliably well against autoguns, which unlike modern day firearms are more akin to battle rifles than your typical modern AR (IIRC the autoguns we know the caliber of are 8.5mm "long" bullets, so something comparable to a sniper cartridge. Granted this isn't surprising either as, compared to real ballistic inserts, Guardsmen flak armor is stupidly thick.

[totgeboren]

Something I haven’t seen mentioned in the discussion about giving bolters ap in order to make them more ‚realistic‘ is that it would make them relatively even better against PA than guardsmen. While a -1 AP increases the damage against flak armor only by 25% it increases the damage against power armor by 50%. This is pretty much the opposite of lorefull. With the current mechanics of the game there simply is no way to completely ignore cheap armor without (realitvely) becoming much better against power armor.

I think you got that exactly backwards?

Giving boltguns a -1 ap value would lead to 50% less flak saves and 25% less pa saves.

[Panzer]

 

Something I haven’t seen mentioned in the discussion about giving bolters ap in order to make them more ‚realistic‘ is that it would make them relatively even better against PA than guardsmen. While a -1 AP increases the damage against flak armor only by 25% it increases the damage against power armor by 50%. This is pretty much the opposite of lorefull. With the current mechanics of the game there simply is no way to completely ignore cheap armor without (realitvely) becoming much better against power armor.

I think you got that exactly backwards?

Giving boltguns a -1 ap value would lead to 50% less flak saves and 25% less pa saves.

You're both right. He talks about damage, you talk about saves. ;)

[totgeboren]

True! Just woke up!

[SickSix]

Okay I am going to concede the caliber and what not of a heavy bolter. Again, trying too hard to make sense of any of these weapons is fruitless effort.

 

I think we are looking at the wrong thing when trying to 'fix' bolter marines. The issue isn't really in a stat line, amd if we mess with either the marine or his weapon it throws out too many secondary and tertiary issues due to the tight margins of a D6 system.

 

Instead of trying to modify the Marine or humble bolter, how about buffing the Tactical Squad itself?

 

Why not give tactical squads their own special rule like Pride of the Legion? Make bolters in a 10 man tac squad salvo 4/2 or something like that. That way you haven't made a change to Marines or the bolter, but tac squads are now way more effective or at least more enticing and more formidable on the table (as they should be). And yet they don't really invalidate anything else.

[Quixus]

That tactical squads are lackluster in this edition is a separate issue. One has nothing to do with the other and does not fix other marines using bolt weapons.

[Deathwalker]

Actually. my intent has zero to do with fixing bolters other than the Hvy bolter. It is my -opinion- that Assault cannons by their nature should have the S5, and heavy bolters should have the S6. Everything else can remain the same (though, I would also favour the Assault cannon being an assault weapon given what usually carries them).

Fixing tac squads is a separate issue entirely, and one that does deserve a good discussion, it's just outside the scope of why I started this thread.

[Skaorn]

 

If you've had experience with a chainsaw, you will know that chainsaw swords are a dumb idea (not as bad as the DnD dire flail though.

Sure, if you assume it works exactly like a real world chainsaw.

Get a set of teeth with monomolecular edges spinning fast enough and it would practically be a solid edge.

That's the thing about sci-fi weapons. We have only the vaguest idea whether they would actually work simply because we don't have technology capable of emulating it.

Does a chainsword work by driving a chain along a wheeled track by motorized parts? Is it unreasonable to assume that said moving parts have to deal with exposure to flesh, blood, cloth, bone, and metal which could mess with those parts and require a lot of maintenance? Is it impossible for said chain from snapping or from getting knocked of the track due to, say, swinging it hard at an armored target? Why are there so many people running around with chainswords and no eye protection?

 

While it's conceivable that advances in science and technology can some day make gyroget or needle weapons more desirable than conventional firearms, a chainsword has a lot of basic mechanical issues that would make it an undesirable weapon (especially when it doesn't seem to perform much better mechanically than simpler melee weapons in game). While I agree that talking about the penatrating power and tissue trauma caused by modern rounds and their effect versus modern armor and comparing them to futuristic versions doesn't work real well. Even a basic gun could be using more sophisticated rounds with fuel that is more efficient and powerful that we can't develop yet. Just because you can create a bullet that can penetrate armor then detonate inside a target due to contact with moisture though (let's see if someone gets that Shadowrun reference), doesn't mean it changes the physics of how the gun firing it works or stop it from being a bad idea to make such a round.

 

To address the OP though, the AC and HB work the way the designers want it to work. You can say that an AC should have a longer effective range because they probably use tracer rounds and that you've never seen reference to bolter tracer rounds before. This doesn't mean that the designers should change the mechanics to match this assumption as long as the AC functions in game as they want and at the price they want.

[Deathwalker]

After playing TTWG's and RPG's for 30 years and dipping a leg into games design myself, all I can say is that games designers -frequently- screw the pooch :D

Besides, tracer rounds would aid in accuracy, not in effective range.

[Quixus]

It depends how you define effective range. If you mean the range at which a hit will cause significant damage then you are right, however AFAIK effective range means the range in which you can reliably hit a target and do damage. With that definition the tracer also increases effective range, by making a hit more likely.

[Deathwalker]

It depends how you define effective range. If you mean the range at which a hit will cause significant damage then you are right, however AFAIK effective range means the range in which you can reliably hit a target and do damage. With that definition the tracer also increases effective range, by making a hit more likely.

No, it would make -hitting- more likely. Effective range is not a factor in tracer rounds especially given the fact that tracer rounds in of themselves are less effective against armour due to sacrificing space to produce the tracer effect. Give me a WW1 dirigible, and sure it's more effective, shoot them at a same era tank, not so much.

Greater accuracy in no way creates greater effectiveness unless, as is the case with the dirigible, it is more vunerable to X round. AP rounds are crap against a normal person because the bullet will pierce, penetrate and exit along a clear wound track unless it is a massive damn hole to begin with. Conversely, Hollow points suck against armour, but are great for shredding unprotected flesh.

 

But, this is by the by.

[Quixus]

I too said tracers make hitting more likely and if a hit is likely at a certain range that distance is within the effective range should the projectile be able to cause damage at that distance. So extending the distance at which a hit is sufficiently probable, will extend the effective range.

[Deathwalker]

No

[Chaplain ChonkE]

Erm why shouldnt it be better?

 

It's a more advanced weapon developed later in the timeline.

You have it in your head that it should be worse. That's not the case.

What was once heresy is now orthodoxy. Love it :D

[Skaorn]

No, it would make -hitting- more likely. Effective range is not a factor in tracer rounds especially given the fact that tracer rounds in of themselves are less effective against armour due to sacrificing space to produce the tracer effect. Give me a WW1 dirigible, and sure it's more effective, shoot them at a same era tank, not so much.

Greater accuracy in no way creates greater effectiveness unless, as is the case with the dirigible, it is more vunerable to X round. AP rounds are crap against a normal person because the bullet will pierce, penetrate and exit along a clear wound track unless it is a massive damn hole to begin with. Conversely, Hollow points suck against armour, but are great for shredding unprotected flesh.

 

But, this is by the by.

Tracer rounds aren't loaded straight as one type of ammunition but intermixed so you can range your shots to your target by getting an idea of were the majority of your shots are going. Generally you'll have something like 1 tracer round in 10 in a belt of 100 standard rounds, for example.

[Deathwalker]

 

No, it would make -hitting- more likely. Effective range is not a factor in tracer rounds especially given the fact that tracer rounds in of themselves are less effective against armour due to sacrificing space to produce the tracer effect. Give me a WW1 dirigible, and sure it's more effective, shoot them at a same era tank, not so much.

Greater accuracy in no way creates greater effectiveness unless, as is the case with the dirigible, it is more vunerable to X round. AP rounds are crap against a normal person because the bullet will pierce, penetrate and exit along a clear wound track unless it is a massive damn hole to begin with. Conversely, Hollow points suck against armour, but are great for shredding unprotected flesh.

 

But, this is by the by.

Tracer rounds aren't loaded straight as one type of ammunition but intermixed so you can range your shots to your target by getting an idea of were the majority of your shots are going. Generally you'll have something like 1 tracer round in 10 in a belt of 100 standard rounds, for example.

 

It's more a 4:1 ratio, but sure, you are quite right.

It makes no difference if my .22, .44, .50 or .998 has a 4:1 ratio of tracers if the target is hard enough to not care about your "extended range due to accuracy" as you no longer have penetrating power at your new range.

Again, this is by the by.

[Skaorn]

Oh, I took your previous post as you thought they used tracers as just a single ammo type. The only reason I replied was because I thought you might be confusing tracer rounds with something else. I don't want to be drawn into an argument over something I used as a throwaway example over "real life" someone could pull out as to why a 40k gun should be X when the gun might work exactly how the designers want it to. I'm not an expert with machine guns, all my knowledge comes from reading. The only person I've met so far in my life I'd consider an expert in their use and in getting shot by an HMG only ever said one thing about his service which, was he was glad he got shot because his trench foot was so bad at the time. My grandfather served in France in the US Army as a private in a mortar and LMG squad. I knew about his Purple Heart but I didn't know about his 3 Bronze Stars until after he died because these are things he probably didn't want to relive (I know, but D-Day must have been a blast!!!). So I'm kind of ok with the game not being "truer to real life".

[Deathwalker]

Oh, I took your previous post as you thought they used tracers as just a single ammo type. The only reason I replied was because I thought you might be confusing tracer rounds with something else. I don't want to be drawn into an argument over something I used as a throwaway example over "real life" someone could pull out as to why a 40k gun should be X when the gun might work exactly how the designers want it to. I'm not an expert with machine guns, all my knowledge comes from reading. The only person I've met so far in my life I'd consider an expert in their use and in getting shot by an HMG only ever said one thing about his service which, was he was glad he got shot because his trench foot was so bad at the time. My grandfather served in France in the US Army as a private in a mortar and LMG squad. I knew about his Purple Heart but I didn't know about his 3 Bronze Stars until after he died because these are things he probably didn't want to relive (I know, but D-Day must have been a blast!!!). So I'm kind of ok with the game not being "truer to real life".

Nah dude, all good. :)

My only real point in this whole thread is that the S value of a Assault cannon Vs a Hvy bolter makes more sense if the HB had S6 as it is a slower firing, larger bore weapon with HE ammo vs a shorter range high velocity but lower bore weapon. The AP is an issue that does not really phase me as the math-hammer is way to tight when you only have possible results of any given dice roll. If you were using a D10 or D20 based system however........

[karden00]

Somewhat like something I said in another thread about not necessarily loving 30/40k having references from our own era mentioned, I can’t say I love that they have stated the caliber of bolts.

I’ve been in this since 2nd ed, and while I may certainly be guilty of not remembering something, one of the first times I noticed caliber being mentioned was in HH:Nemesis (which I didn’t mind .... take that!) when Eristede Kell is described as loading a .75 caliber round into his rifle.

I get that it’s the authors way of letting us know how big the rounds are, which I suppose is helpful (although it really ought to be consistent) but I think I would’ve rather had this one just stay sorta mysterious. It’s the future. Marines are big. Guns are big. I would’ve been just fine with that.

[Stoic Raptor]

..Heavy bolters are 1.00 caliber. Which is 21mm. So yes, they are 18-20mm rounds.

 

1.00 caliber should be one inch diameter - so 25mm, actually.

[Zodd1888]

+1 AP in Rapid Fire range for those of you with desire for better bolters seems more reasonable.

 

Give me -3 AP Inferno Bolters PLEASE! Lol

[Tyriks]

I would like to point out that it's entirely possible that what an Imperial citizen means when they say a given caliber or measurement is quite different than what we would mean saying the same thing.  The length of an inch has changed repeatedly over the years, most recently in the 50's and 60s as everyone adopted a uniform international standard.  By the 41st millennium their standards of measurement could be completely unrecognizable to us (and likely would be).  After all, in Dark Imperium​ Guilliman talks about how they don't even actually know how many years have passed since the Emperor was entombed on the Golden Throne.  

[Stoic Raptor]

The length of an inch has changed repeatedly over the years, most recently in the 50's and 60s as everyone adopted a uniform international standard.

 

That's not entirely correct - the standards for defining the length of an inch have changed (from 1 meter = 39.37 inches, to one inch = 25.4 mm).- but the "length of an inch" itself has changed only by two millonths as a result.  In other words, you'd have to be measuring something 20km long for it to make a difference.

 

While the units of measure may have changed over the course of human history, the inherent values of the things we base them on do not.  We can hardly compare it to the inaccuracy of a timeline of historical events.

[Major_Gilbear]

I fear we've left the topic far behind here folks...

[Deathwalker]

We have, but if OP gets any kind of say if that's fine, this OP says it's fine :P

Geeks love detail, and as a lifelong geek, I love detail.

As a user of Forums since the ANSI BBS days, I know conversations wander, and sometimes those meandering thoughts deliver some real gold.