Kasatka said:

1d10+5 Pen 3 is sufficient to damage light combat vehicles like Sentinels

The stubber does 1d10+4 pen 3, the sentinel has 12, 14 or 16 armour depending on where you hit. Enough to cause damage? Sure, it's going to get one hit in ten to do anything but bounce on the heavy armour, three shots in ten on the medium armour and five shots in ten on the light armour.'

Average hits in ten that cause damage for light medium and heavy armour on sentinel without RF.

Stubber: 1 3 5

Bolter: 5.1 8.4 9.6

Autogun with manstoppers: 0 2 4

Armageddon with manstoppers: 1 3 5

The heavy stubber does next to nothing against light vehicles. It fills the role of taking out light vehicles only slightly better than an autogun with manstoppers.

It's clearly a heavy weapon, it says so in the rules. But it's really underpowered for it's weight.

Graspar said:

Depends on where you look. I've not got my Dark Heresy book to hand at the moment as the Rogue Trader one is more pertinent to me at the moment, and both Heavy Stubbers in there are 1d10+5 Pen 3. These days, I'm personally reluctant to base any weapon's damage values off of the armoury in the Dark Heresy rulebook - being the first one produced, it's more flawed than those that came later, and the Inquisitor's Handbook and the Rogue Trader rulebook both give a better sense of a more appropriate weapon damage scale. It's still not perfect, but I'd sooner use the more recent sources as they've been written to account for the mistakes of the past.

All that in mind, it's still roughly comparable to the 17% chance of a glancing hit against armour 10 (light vehicle armour) a Heavy Stubber has in 40k.

Depends on where you look. I've not got my Dark Heresy book to hand at the moment as the Rogue Trader one is more pertinent to me at the moment, and both Heavy Stubbers in there are 1d10+5 Pen 3. These days, I'm personally reluctant to base any weapon's damage values off of the armoury in the Dark Heresy rulebook - being the first one produced, it's more flawed than those that came later, and the Inquisitor's Handbook and the Rogue Trader rulebook both give a better sense of a more appropriate weapon damage scale. It's still not perfect, but I'd sooner use the more recent sources as they've been written to account for the mistakes of the past.

I agree, the RT statline is mostly better. But it could use some weight reduction to be viable, at least for the 40 round drum pattern. Also, yay updated damage for heavy stubbers in RT. I hadn't noticed before.

All that in mind, it's still roughly comparable to the 17% chance of a glancing hit against armour 10 (light vehicle armour) a Heavy Stubber has in 40k.

But 40k has a very different scale for weapon damage, does it not? The point is that the stubber, by DH RAW, is damage wise to the autogun as the autogun is to the autopistol. That's very little extra oomph for 35 kg and bracing requirements. RT values are a little better but still not enough to make it a viable weapon compared to other heavy or basic weapons.

Graspar said:

There's a reason it's seldom used in proper armed forces in the Imperium.

There are a couple of other factors. Range is a big one - the average Heavy Stubber has 30m more basic range than an autogun (equating to 15m more short range, 60m more long range, 90m more long range and 120m more extreme range) - and ammunition capacity is another - the ability to keep firing on full-auto for just a little bit longer is valuable, and of the three types of Heavy Stubber in the rulebooks (DH, and both in RT, two of them have 200-round magazines, allowing them to maintain sustained fire for more than six times longer than an autogun (and more than twice as long as an autogun with a shot selector).

Once braced, a heavy stubber of any kind has nothing hampering its ability to fire - it takes a full action to fire on full-auto anyway, and once set up in a defensible position, can lay down consistent firepower (or establish a 60m suppressive fire/overwatch kill-zone) for a lot longer than a man with an autogun. A belt-fed (200-round) one then only costs 10 thrones to reload (less than half the cost of a 30-round magazine of manstoppers), on top of being the third-cheapest heavy weapon in the game (the Crank Cannon - which is unreliable, lacks Pen, range and rate of fire, carries fewer shots and takes longer to reload, for only +1 damage compared to the DH rulebook heavy stubber - and the Naval Shotcannon - which is a Heavy Weapon version of a Shotgun, for all the awkwardness that entails - are both cheaper). It's not the best weapon it could be, by any stretch, but it's far from useless, and a decent cheap source of heavier-than-normal firepower.

And again, the notion of different patterns means that there's nothing stopping you bringing in variations on that basic theme from time to time - a bigger version on the pintle mount of a tank, or a twin-linked version (add Storm, rather than twin-linked - personally, I use them interchangeably when statting up twin-linked versions of weapons, preferring Twin-linked for single-shot guns and Storm for rapid-fire ones, and using both at once on things like the quad autocannons of a Hydra Flak Tank) on a gun carriage operated by a pair of enemies.

Basically the heavy stubber is a heavy machine gun and like the're historic counterparts there's a range of sizes from .30 cal to 15mm so 1d10+4 or 1d10+5 (or even higher) are both right depending on where you get it from but, yes on the 40k battlefield they aren't really good enough for any of the regular armies. For PDF and Mercenaries etc they are easy to get and enough to make most DH opponants think twice.

And like heavy machine guns they aren't really made to be portable, most of the early heavy machine guns were about 15kg (from the scan I did) but loaded, with a tripod are about double that if not more. If you look at the description there's an option to use it with a 40 round drum rather than the belt and it doesn't mention it but i'd let some one knock off some weight if they wanted to lug one around, especially if they went down to bipod rather than a tripod.

BNut for other heavy weapons I've got no problem with people luggin them about if they can, acolytes don't need the days of supplies and ammo that IG do when they use heavy weapons. The only exception is the multi laser (which the errata says is too heavy once you add the power supply) and the Autocannon which I must so much recoil that I can't see it being viable, but that's my own preference.

The Stubber would be more useful if it weighed 14kg.

Do that, and it becomes a viable HW.

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

This ^ though not quite that little. Dropping the Heavy Stubbers weight by even 5 or 10kg would be enough to make it enough of a step up from high end autoguns or other "dakka-dakka" basic weapons. As it stands, the high weight, limited utility (auto10 only, braced) and poor penetration means it sees little use except in starting groups.

To be honest, i would love to see FFG properly bring all weapon stats in all systems into line in a universal 40k d10 rpg players guide. Retconning older systems and cementing newer ones, this would allow much better synergy between systems.

Oh yeah, and some more dollah for your wallets FFG!

You mean like a weapons update to bring everything in line, so a Lasgun has the same profile in each game and so on?

I'd support that. I hate having things with the same name but different rules (just look at the sorry state of 40K, with no less than 5 different versions of the Land Raider, and Storm Shields that do different things depending on what army you're in).



As far as the Stubber goes, 14kg's is the approx weight of the M1919, which is what the Stubber is closest too. Weighing it at 35kg just seems unnecessarily harsh.

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

I know there are supposed to be many different versions of everthing, I except and am quite happy with it. But it's getting difficult to hold that stance when some games seems to have the a deffinate range and the next blows it appart and all the time it's not functioning how you expected it too.

H.B.M.C. said:

That 14kg's is unloaded weight and not on a tripod, all weapon weights in DH are loaded weight (which is apparently 3.5kg for 200 rounds acording to the DH advice). If some one has at BB and wants to shoot their HS from the hip all the time then that's fine but in most cases it needs at least a bipod.

Face Eater said:

and that weight in the DH books is unloaded weight too... you add a 10th of the weight for each ammo clip and bipod/tripod and everything else has its own weight too

but again all the previously achieved technology has been lost and we are stuck with low grade tech and of course we do have to use machines with a machine spirit that needs to fit somewhere... and miniaturisation is nearly not present (especially when everyone wants bigger bullets that can pierce xenos)

Kasatka said:

Face Eater said:

well DH corebook tells us that Space marines weapons are sized so that space marines can wield them and a normal person dosn't ... so of course they have bigger heavier guns tailored for their size which do more damage but if there is any monetary economy the probably have to pay more

Sirion said:

I'm not bothered that a Space Marine bolter does more than a Human bolter. I think standard bolters do a nice damage these days. What I don't like is that because they are Space Marine bolter they do about the same damage as a krak grenade, or a melta gun (pen aside).

Face Eater said:

A SM bolt pistol does the same damage as a civilian Heavy Bolter... which sounds about right to me

Friend of the Dork said:

You make it sound a lot worse seeing as bolt pistols and boltguns do the same damage. But I don't in essence have problem with it. Of course taking the DW sample adventure stats, Marine Boltguns do more damage than 'civilian' heavy bolters. And the same as Krak Grenades, which SM's actually have as standard despite the fact that they don't do any more damage than their bolters.

well about 1:57 in the video he tells about the frag 12

now if we got this today... (and we have rifle grenades for qutie some time now) what do you think a bolt-bullet/shell is?

a self-propelled-mini-rocket

oversized for space marines !!! (who wield them in servo assisted power armour)

why should it do less damage then a frag grenade?

ofcourse space marines need oversized frag grenades that do more damage... granted

Boltguns would be called gyrocs or gyrojet weapons in most other gaming systems, if you have access to a copy of any of the GURPS HEavy weapons books, they should list them, basiacly your firing rocket propelled grenades. As for why they have krack grenades, thats for demolitions work, its all they would ever be good for because of the lack of AoE and the way thrown projectiles scatter

Friend of the Dork said:

Why would it do less damage than a frag grenade? Well, because since 2nd edition onwards frag grenades are at least fist sized objects filled with explosive (1st ed grenades being hyp[er-advanced things about the size of marbles), a fragmenting case designed to scatter deadly fragments over an radius of several metres... while a bolt round is an explosive round of slightly less than 20mm calbre which explodes inside the target.

But nothing (until Dark Heresy) every said anything about Space Marine bolts being any larger than standard ones. Yes, the guns have been said to be larger, but then that could just mean they are made oversize to make it easier for the 7 foot tall guys wearing power armour to handle, rather than anything improved about the bolts themselves. Now, they should be absolutely top of the line quality wise, and have features that standard bolters don't have, but do so much more damage? No... especially as both "normal" and SM bolts are .75 calibre.

I take it the AdMech fills up the extra size with lead so the Marines can bludgeon people with them better? Sorry, but oversized-weapons not making use of their size sounds rather stupid to me - Dark Heresy retconning that is definitely an improvement in my eyes.

larger size for larger hands means more space for the machine spirit... bigger machine spirit leads to more damage ;P

if not is a human capable of holding an auto bolter one handed too? space marines can and they are the same size and stuff by your logic...

either way it makes sense that space marine weapons are bigger because they need at least a bigger grip, trigger, and stuff and if a space marine should be able to dis/re assemble it then it needs to be larger in all parts (yes they have their servitors for this stuff but should be able to do it on their own)

ammunition... uuuh there is some fluff in DH about ammunition size (like angelus uses that bigger sized real space marine bolter ammo) but I dunno about wh40k books that tell about normal people using bolter weapons...

borithan said:

40K fluff services the rules, and as the rules don't allow for variations in weapon types (there are only 6 results on a D6, so everything is squashed towards the middle), no differences were created.

I think it's good that there is a difference.

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

That's fair enough, you might as well make use of the extra variation.

Although in TT, they could have made SM bolters do as much damage as IG heavy bolters (both of which do less damage than a krak grenade by the way), in the same way that SM scout shotguns do more damage than IG veteran's shotguns.

I was fine with th implied 2d10 damage for an SM bolter, then became 2d10+5. It's all seeming to me like they decided that things weren't deadly enough (which we all knew) but they decided that SM's HAVE to be able to kill everyone imediately. Or perhaps without upping Bolter damage there was no point not chainswording people with you unnatural strength.

from france

i just watched "predators" one the "game" the russian is equipped with a pretty heavy weapons . he can walk and shoot without so much problem . is it a heavy stubber?