Not if you follow the logic of normal bolters in DH, where they fire the same ammo and thus have identical damage. Bolt pistols do 1D10+5X Pen 4, bolters do 1D10+5X pen 4. Thus, astartes bolters should do the same thing, 2d10X pen 5 etc. Only the heavy bolter is different, but I'm wondering if the heavy bolter is the same for marines as guard.
Hellebore
Hellebore said:
Not if you follow the logic of normal bolters in DH, where they fire the same ammo and thus have identical damage. Bolt pistols do 1D10+5X Pen 4, bolters do 1D10+5X pen 4. Thus, astartes bolters should do the same thing, 2d10X pen 5 etc. Only the heavy bolter is different, but I'm wondering if the heavy bolter is the same for marines as guard.
Hellebore
Well spotted all, bear in mind that in order for basic bolt shells would be substantially larger because they need more fuel for the flight time even though the warhead seems to be the same. At least I pressume that's what they were thinking when they stated them.
On Bolter Shells:
The "Civilian" Bolt weapons use smaller shells, this has been stated in several books (1d10+5 X, Pen 4), the "Civilian" Heavy Bolter uses heavier shells, very much akin to those the Space Marines use (2d10 X, Pen 5).
It would be reasonable to assume the Astartes heavy bolter would use even heavier shells, say (3d10 X, Pen 6)
Hellebore said:
Not if you follow the logic of normal bolters in DH, where they fire the same ammo and thus have identical damage. Bolt pistols do 1D10+5X Pen 4, bolters do 1D10+5X pen 4. Thus, astartes bolters should do the same thing, 2d10X pen 5 etc. Only the heavy bolter is different, but I'm wondering if the heavy bolter is the same for marines as guard.
Hellebore
The way I rationalise it is as follows:
All bolt guns and bolt pistols are chambered to fire a 0.75 calibre shell of some kind. The shells utilised by the Astartes (and by other organisations equipped to a similar standard, whatever you define those organisations to be - disclaimer to avoid a repeat of that infuriating argument) are more powerful, using a more potent rocket and a more powerful explosive charge. The size and robust construction of an Astartes bolter allows it to cope with the increased stresses these heavier (not larger) more powerful shells impose upon the weapon, where lesser shells cannot do so sufficiently well to make it a viable option.
The Heavy Bolters utilised by the Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy (and pretty much everyone else) are chambered for a 1.0 calibre shell, the increased mass of which allows for explosive force and rocket effectiveness roughly equivalent to that of the smaller, higher-quality Astartes bolt shells. Astartes (and equivalent) Heavy Bolters, however, do not use this larger round. Rather, because of the way that the Astartes carry heavy weapons, an Astartes Heavy Bolter uses the same rounds as their bolters, stormbolters and bolt pistols, making them far easier to resupply and allowing Devastator Marines to carry a greater amount of ammunition than might be the case with a larger round, meaning that they can operate in the field for longer and operate the weapon solo, without the need for a loader to carry additional ammunition, and without sacrificing effectiveness.
Heavy Bolters are, afterall, more lethal than bolters primarily because of their rate of fire, and it seems only practical and (IMO) rather appropriate to have the Astartes use the same bolter rounds for every bolt weapon in their arsenal.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
All bolt guns and bolt pistols are chambered to fire a 0.75 calibre shell of some kind. The shells utilised by the Astartes (and by other organisations equipped to a similar standard, whatever you define those organisations to be - disclaimer to avoid a repeat of that infuriating argument) are more powerful, using a more potent rocket and a more powerful explosive charge. The size and robust construction of an Astartes bolter allows it to cope with the increased stresses these heavier (not larger) more powerful shells impose upon the weapon, where lesser shells cannot do so sufficiently well to make it a viable option.
The Heavy Bolters utilised by the Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy (and pretty much everyone else) are chambered for a 1.0 calibre shell, the increased mass of which allows for explosive force and rocket effectiveness roughly equivalent to that of the smaller, higher-quality Astartes bolt shells. Astartes (and equivalent) Heavy Bolters, however, do not use this larger round. Rather, because of the way that the Astartes carry heavy weapons, an Astartes Heavy Bolter uses the same rounds as their bolters, stormbolters and bolt pistols, making them far easier to resupply and allowing Devastator Marines to carry a greater amount of ammunition than might be the case with a larger round, meaning that they can operate in the field for longer and operate the weapon solo, without the need for a loader to carry additional ammunition, and without sacrificing effectiveness.
Heavy Bolters are, afterall, more lethal than bolters primarily because of their rate of fire, and it seems only practical and (IMO) rather appropriate to have the Astartes use the same bolter rounds for every bolt weapon in their arsenal.
Respectfully I have to disagree on 2 points:
1) Just b/c 2 shells are both .75 caliber it does not mean they are the same size, just that the projectile (not the cartridege) is the same diameter. A .22 long rifle cartridge and a .22 short are both the same caliber and have similar projectiles but have significantly different penetration/damage characteristics because the shell (and amount of propellant in it) is dramatically different.
Also look at a .22 short (or even .22LR) next to a .225 military rifle cartridge (5.56mm NATO). The caliber is only different by half of a hundredth of an inch [0.127 mm] but the projectile on the militrary cartridge is much longer and steel jacketed and the shell casing dwarfs the .22short and is so much more powerful as not to be in the same league. Even though the caliber is just barely different, neither weapon can properly chamber much less fire the other's ammo.
Even if all bolters are .75 caliber, the Astartes shell could (while not necessarily so) be longer (both projectile and shell) and the shell could be bulkier in both diameter and length.
The point being that same caliber doesn not necessarily = same size.
2) To that Space Marine Heavy bolters fire the same ammo as SM Bolters and bolt pistols, you'd have to ignore almost all of the models and/or artwork produced. A SM Heavy Bolter's barrel is often at least twice the diameter of that of a boltgun or boltpistol (whose barrels and clips have similar diameter/width throughout any given generation of models releeased). So Boltgun and bolt-pistol using same ammo, sure, fits just about every bit of info out there. Heavy bolter, not so much unless you completely throw out TT stats (which I admit are a hyper-abstract, only vaguely applicable RPG degree of detail), all imagery, and majority of background material.
DocIII said:
The point being that same caliber doesn not necessarily = same size.
I'm fully aware of all of this... but up until a year or so ago, the background on bolters was that all non-heavy bolt weapons used the same ammunition, and there are many people (as demonstrated by the extremely long arguments on the old FFG forums) who are unwilling to compromise in that regard.
My stance on the matter, as noted partially above, was formed initially as a compromise between the two sides of that argument, and is one that I've adopted as my own since, because it's a convenient rationalisation to make.
DocIII said:
Remember that the models aren't exactly an accurate source here, as they're not even in scale with themselves, let alone with other models from the same range.
It's a leap from what's established, though, I know, but it's a minor leap in background compared to there being an ever-increasing requirement for 'Space Marine' versions of weapon stats, which are bigger, better and shinier in every way. With bolters, their iconic weapon, it's one thing, and some melee weapons deserve that treatment (I, personally, consider the standard Astartes combat knife to be a mono short sword rather than a knife... they're just that big and heavy), but I think it's a slippery slope to continue down, as before you know it we'll have Astartes versions of Lascannons and Plasma Guns and so forth, where they don't necessarily need it. Personally, I see this as the path of least resistance in terms of the whole "Astartes weapons" matter.
Fundamentally, I use tabletop stats for rough comparative purposes only, and am quite willing to discard them if they get in the way. As it stands, if an Astartes bolt shell deals equivalent damage to a heavy bolter shell (which is does, as established in The Inquisitor's Handbook and Purge the Unclean), then that's one thing... much of the damage a heavy bolter deals is due to firing those shells at a much faster rate, rather than necessarily being because of heavier ammunition, so how damaging the individual shells are is of less significance overall (the Shuriken Catapult is a good point of comparison here - the high rate of fire is often abstracted into additional damage in order to speed gameplay up by not having to roll for dozens or hundreds of separate shots).
One thing to keep in mind with the suggestions of making it only fire semi and full ... you are reducing the ability to fire the SB with a half action. That's a pretty hefty bonus.
Why not make a Stormbolter 2/4/8?
So a half action fires like a semi-auto with 2 rounds, and a full action (firing semi) gets 4?
It seems reasonably powerful, allowing the chance for a half-action shot to hit multiple times, but hardly overpowered. Just keep the damage inline with regular bolters. After all, 'single-shot' is one brief squeeze of a trigger, which in the case of a stormbolter would fire both barrels.
dvang said:
One thing to keep in mind with the suggestions of making it only fire semi and full ... you are reducing the ability to fire the SB with a half action. That's a pretty hefty bonus.
Not if it's being carried by a Terminator, or on a vehicle (the two most common places to find a Stormbolter). In those situations, the auto-stabilised trait on vehicle weapon mounts and super-heavy armour like Terminator armour seems entirely justified, and allows full-auto fire as a half action.
dvang said:
Assuming that both barrels fire simultaneously, rather than sequentially (ie, do they both fire at once, or does one barrel fire, and then the other?).
My feeling is that the Heavy weapons in DH are the same for all branches. It's only the bolters that are different between the Astartes and the Imperium at large.
However that does make the astartes bolter a better AT weapon than a plasma gun. So either Astartes start getting soopa speshul astartes plasma guns or they should errata the hell out of plasma guns and meltaguns to make them the anti tank weapons they should be.
I'm 'ok' with astartes pattern bolters, although I think its buying into the indestructible stupidity of space marine fiction a little too much. Making them heavily armoured and count as a mono club in melee would have been good enough I think. However I think they're pushing it a bit to then have special astartes everything else. What's next, astartes pattern portable lascannons that do 10D10 damage?
Astartes bolters = fair enough. I prefer it not to be so, but can live with it. Astartes pattern everything else including the kitchen sink is a little much however.
Here's hoping they just errata plasma and melta guns instead. If a plasma gun sucked as much as it does in the DH rulebook in 40k, they just wouldn't use it. 1D10+6 Pen6 is far too crap when compared to 2D10 Pen5. Even ignoring the astartes bolter isssue, it makes the HEAVY BOLTER, a professed anti infantry weapon into a MUCH MUCH better AT weapon than the plasmagun. So the solution should be the change of plasma and melta guns because at the moment a heavy bolter is a much better option to take out vehicles than a plasma gun...
Hellebore
Hellebore said:
This being the main reason that I've houseruled all plasma and melta basic and pistol weapons to have an extra 1d10 of damage...
Hellebore said:
As far as I can tell, it's as much a matter of ensuring that the weapon is a practical alternative to throwing rocks. Allowing that Agamorr is noticeably stronger and tougher than a normal Marine (and consequently setting a 'baseline' battle brother at SB8, TB6 in full AV8/9 armour), an improvised weapon (be it a table or a rock, in melee or at range) deals 1d10+5 damage - almost as good as a 'normal' bolter against an unarmoured target (though significantly worse against armoured ones, due to improvised weapons being primitive).
Lower the strength of the marine to remove this issue, and you make them less significant - if the physical prowess of the Astartes is achievable by unaugmented humans, then there seems to be little point in seeking out the very best of the best and spending eight years.surgically, genetically, chemically and psychologically altering them to that degree...
Along with that, consider the only even remotely in-scale model that exists of a Space Marine - the Brother-Captain Artemis (*cough* girl's name *cough*) model for Inquisitor. Artemis stands taller and broader than any human model in the range, even those in power armour, and wields a bolter easily twice the size of those used by mere 'mortals' (scaling up from Artemis' weapon, an Astartes bolter would be between 3.5 and 4 feet in length and weigh nearly 30 kilos, as it's twice the size and thus four times the mass, of a human equivalent). It seems to be a given that the weapons of the Astartes are significantly bigger than their human-use equivalents - they do, afterall, have greater size, strength and leverage with which to wield those weapons, and it seems foolish not to take advantage of it.
The "Astartes Bolter" issue, then, is dealing with two issues at once - firstly by increasing the effectiveness gap between impromptu weapons and the iconic weapon of the Astartes, and secondly by accounting for the inherently larger nature of Astartes weaponry.
It doesn't, however, have to go any further than the bolter. Astartes versions of plasma guns and meltaguns and flamers and heavy bolters and missile launchers all (and more besides) will exist, simply to accomodate the larger hands (the problem with hands the size of dinner plates sheathed in plasteel, adamantium and arma-plas is that they make handling the weapons of the common man rather difficult), greater strength and auto-sense targeting systems of their intended wielders (and to make them suitably well-armoured to endure the Astartes way of war)... but that in no way requires them to be more powerful. Better-made perhaps - they are the Emperor's Finest, afterall, so it shouldn't be too much to expect at least Good Quality equipment for them - but not necessarily more lethal.
As for the "indestructable stupidity" of Space Marines... I've GMed a game with pregenerated Astartes characters of just slightly below Agamorr's ability, as a Deathwatch Killteam one-shot. They're damned tough, as is only to be expected, capable of far more than a similar-sized group of Acolytes... but they're far from invulnerable, and a sufficiently dangerous threat (the kind of threat that the Astartes are expected and called upon to face) can harm and even kill them. So long as the GM gives them an appropriately lethal adversary to challenge them, a rough draft of what Space Marines are like in 40kRP seem to be a decent compromise between immortal god-warriors and the slightly-better-than-average Ubergrunts portrayed in the 40k tabletop game.
Good points NO1 h3r3.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
dvang said:
One thing to keep in mind with the suggestions of making it only fire semi and full ... you are reducing the ability to fire the SB with a half action. That's a pretty hefty bonus.
Not if it's being carried by a Terminator, or on a vehicle (the two most common places to find a Stormbolter). In those situations, the auto-stabilised trait on vehicle weapon mounts and super-heavy armour like Terminator armour seems entirely justified, and allows full-auto fire as a half action.
dvang said:
Assuming that both barrels fire simultaneously, rather than sequentially (ie, do they both fire at once, or does one barrel fire, and then the other?).
Unless you also look at the tabletop game, where Grey knights, SM sergeants (I believe), sisters of battle, inquisitors, and Inquisitorial retinue can all carry them. Looking at the tabletop, the big advantage the stormbolter has over the regular bolter (for foot troops) is the ability to move and fire the full distance and with full ROF. Hard to do if you're restricted to using a full action to use the thing.
Honestly, would it make a big difference in effect if on a single trigger pull both barrels fired simultaneously or sequentially? IMO, the space of time in a sequential firing of a single trigger pull would would be negligible, and could easily fall under the same effect.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
This being the main reason that I've houseruled all plasma and melta basic and pistol weapons to have an extra 1d10 of damage...
Yes this is my preferred option too, but I would like to see an 'official' stance on the problem.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
As far as I can tell, it's as much a matter of ensuring that the weapon is a practical alternative to throwing rocks. Allowing that Agamorr is noticeably stronger and tougher than a normal Marine (and consequently setting a 'baseline' battle brother at SB8, TB6 in full AV8/9 armour), an improvised weapon (be it a table or a rock, in melee or at range) deals 1d10+5 damage - almost as good as a 'normal' bolter against an unarmoured target (though significantly worse against armoured ones, due to improvised weapons being primitive).
Lower the strength of the marine to remove this issue, and you make them less significant - if the physical prowess of the Astartes is achievable by unaugmented humans, then there seems to be little point in seeking out the very best of the best and spending eight years.surgically, genetically, chemically and psychologically altering them to that degree...
Along with that, consider the only even remotely in-scale model that exists of a Space Marine - the Brother-Captain Artemis (*cough* girl's name *cough*) model for Inquisitor. Artemis stands taller and broader than any human model in the range, even those in power armour, and wields a bolter easily twice the size of those used by mere 'mortals' (scaling up from Artemis' weapon, an Astartes bolter would be between 3.5 and 4 feet in length and weigh nearly 30 kilos, as it's twice the size and thus four times the mass, of a human equivalent). It seems to be a given that the weapons of the Astartes are significantly bigger than their human-use equivalents - they do, afterall, have greater size, strength and leverage with which to wield those weapons, and it seems foolish not to take advantage of it.
The "Astartes Bolter" issue, then, is dealing with two issues at once - firstly by increasing the effectiveness gap between impromptu weapons and the iconic weapon of the Astartes, and secondly by accounting for the inherently larger nature of Astartes weaponry.
It doesn't, however, have to go any further than the bolter. Astartes versions of plasma guns and meltaguns and flamers and heavy bolters and missile launchers all (and more besides) will exist, simply to accomodate the larger hands (the problem with hands the size of dinner plates sheathed in plasteel, adamantium and arma-plas is that they make handling the weapons of the common man rather difficult), greater strength and auto-sense targeting systems of their intended wielders (and to make them suitably well-armoured to endure the Astartes way of war)... but that in no way requires them to be more powerful. Better-made perhaps - they are the Emperor's Finest, afterall, so it shouldn't be too much to expect at least Good Quality equipment for them - but not necessarily more lethal.
As for the "indestructable stupidity" of Space Marines... I've GMed a game with pregenerated Astartes characters of just slightly below Agamorr's ability, as a Deathwatch Killteam one-shot. They're damned tough, as is only to be expected, capable of far more than a similar-sized group of Acolytes... but they're far from invulnerable, and a sufficiently dangerous threat (the kind of threat that the Astartes are expected and called upon to face) can harm and even kill them. So long as the GM gives them an appropriately lethal adversary to challenge them, a rough draft of what Space Marines are like in 40kRP seem to be a decent compromise between immortal god-warriors and the slightly-better-than-average Ubergrunts portrayed in the 40k tabletop game.
[ /quote]
An improvised weapon is 1D10-2 + SB. I've always taken that to be (1D10-2) +SB, so in the case of a marine it would be SB8 + (1D10-2). Although I don't really think that it would threaten a marine's use of the bolter considering the short range of a thrown improvised weapon and the semi 2 option on the bolter.
Most Inquisitor conversions I've seen with bolters just use the Artemis one on humans. The only other bolt weapon I can remember in the game is Tyrus' bolt pistol. I'm looking at my Artemis model and the bolter is the length of his shin. As a marine is supposed to be ~8 feet tall, that wouldn't make the gun 4 feet long as it would reach to his hip. compared to my Tyrus model the gun is up to mid/top thigh. If Tyrus is 6' or more that would make the gun between 2.5 and 3 feet, which isn't an unwieldy size for a human, although the weight would be high.
The 40k game never made a distinction between bolters used by the guard and the ones used by marines. The new catachan command sprue is even coming out with an astartes pattern bolter modelled into the hands of one of the models.
The argument for plasma guns and flamers just being modified for astartes use rather than being more powerful can just as easily be applied to their bolters. They only need large grips and more armour for their bolters, they don't need higher damage output.
The biggest problem for me is a lack of righteous fury for NPCs. TS Luikart put up his volley fire rules, but the offical rules do not contain anything that allows 100 billion guardsmen with lasguns to kill a single space marine, which in my opinion they should. I'm hoping that FFG will be creating something that will allow for this otherwise it breaks apart. A plasma gun isn't even going to do much damage to a marine, with an average of ~17 damage against a TB6 Armour 8/9 character. but that is how FFG/GW currently have the rules.
Until there is some kind of offical 'stance' on this we have no idea whether the concerns raised are being addressed, being ignored, or if marines will appear with plasma guns with the stats of plasma cannons.
As for multi shots from storm bolters, I prefer the alternating shot concept. If you turn the Single shot category into a multi shot category you change the core design principles in the ranged weapons. Don't forget that the tabletop game is abstract. The storm bolter equipped sisters etc are there to fulfill a game purpose. The rules for table top also prevent someone firing to their full range with a single shot rapid fire weapon, yet in DH you can move as a half action and fire one shot up to full range.
Thus I see no problem with a storm bolter being S/4/8. The /8 actually makes the full auto function one of the most efficient in the game as it has a chance of actually hitting with most of the shots fired and minimises the number wasted. This is because the bonus for Full Auto is independent of the number of shots fired. Technically you could list a weapon with S/1/1 and it would get +20 to hit with a single shot. This is why I prefer the idea that the number of shots directly affects the bonus to hit.
Something like, you get a bonus to hit when firing on full auto equal to 2x the number of shots.
Hellebore
dvang said:
Yes, that's the advantage it has in the wargame, but that's due to the way the rules work. Background-wise, the advantage is rate of fire, not mobility (it is, for all intents and purposes, the SAW version of the bolter).
Grey Knights are actually rarer than Space Marine Terminators (1,000 chapters, 100 or so 1st Company veterans in each, assume 60% have access to Terminator armour on average, and you've got some 60,000 Terminators... compared to 666 Grey Knights, including Grey Knight Terminators), Sisters of Battle use it as a special weapon... Astartes Sergeants, Inquisitors and Inquisitor's retinues... well, it isn't like it's a standard option, so the rarity of the weapon and personal choice all play a factor, and in the latter of those cases, a lighter 'mortal' Stormbolter would be appropriate.
There is another thing to remember - a turn in 40k is approximately several minutes in length (based on the idea that a single Assault in Epic is equivalent to an entire game of 40k, and a turn in Epic is roughly 15 minutes... so a 6-turn game of 40k is about two and a half minutes long. What someone can accomplish in a single turn if 40k, then, is about the same as about 30 turns of combat in Dark Heresy. With that in mind, moving and firing on full-auto is something everyone can do - they do a full move one turn, and autofire the next. That's how it works for everyone, with every weapon in the game... why should the Stormbolter be any different from the Shuriken Catapults and Ork Shootas (the other two main Assault 2 weapons in 40k, both of which have stats in Dark Heresy now) or any other gun in the game?
dvang said:
It's a rule for which there is no precedent when by all rights there could be already. For example, Shuriken Catapults, which have a massive rate of fire in the background, unleashing tens or hundreds of razor-sharp projectiles in a single trigger impulse, are no less deserving of a rule that lets them fire more than once on the move than the Stormbolter, but they don't get one (remembering that in 40k tabletop terms, the difference between the Stormbolter and Shuriken Catapult is one of range, and nothing else). I'm not a fan of double standards like that within the rules, where several things all have a justifiable right within the background for a particular rule yet only one gets it because of the preferences or bias of the writers.
Hellebore said:
Your preference. My tendancy is to resolve all the static modifiers before rolling the dice, so it's 1d10+(SB-2) as far as I'm concerned (I was getting it mixed up with unarmed attacks (1d5-3) before), which ends up with 1d10+6 damage... and suddenly, a Space Marine can throw a rock with more force than he'd get if he just shot someone... yes, the Bolter has advantages beyond that, but it still seems faintly ludicrous... but as I said before, reduce their strength and you trivialise Space Marines...
Hellebore said:
There was a bolt weapons conversion pack as well. Once that was out, I saw more uses of that, than of Artemis' bolter, on human-size models.
Hellebore said:
3 feet isn't that big for a gun, no... but then, most rifles of that size tend to have a stock which accounts for at least part of the length... something not present on the Astartes bolter (it doesn't need it - with autosense targeting from a lens in the iron sights, as mentioned in the 3rd edition Space Marine codex, a Space Marine doesn't need to bring the weapon to his shoulder in order to fire accurately)
Hellebore said:
40k never distinguished between the strength of Orks and the strength of Humans either... doesn't mean there's not a difference. As for the appearance of astartes-style bolters on catachan models.... and? That's solely the appearance of the weapon, and says nothing about scale (and comes primarily from the tendancy of GW's sculptors to use established components - skulls, weapons, purity seals, shoulder pads, etc - to save re-sculpting every little item on a new model).
Hellebore said:
Yes it can be. It isn't, but it can be.
As it stands, 2d10 X Pen 5 doesn't actually produce significantly higher damage than 1d10+5 Pen 4. It's marginally better against armoured targets, and has a much higher maximum damage... but it's also got a lower minimum damage, and the averages are virtually the same. I've made my own attempt to rationalise the matter elsewhere, and repeated it several times, but the point remains that it's the official direction that BI took, and it appears to be as much a token choice to push the damage a little higher than the Marines can achieve on their own, as it is anything else.
Hellebore said:
Big whoop, so house rule it. Every GM I've ever met in person does that with every game they run, and the only place I've ever encountered reluctance to house rule games is on the D&D forums, where the idea of a GM who thinks independently is often seen as abhorrent.
TS Luikart's volley fire rules were, as he mentioned at the time, part of his musings about Astartes characters and Deathwatch (and would only have allowed Guardsmen with lasguns to fire in groups of 18 anyway, dealing 1d10+19 damage). They aren't needed in Dark Heresy, except when Space Marines are brought in for anything more than a cameo, because Dark Heresy doesn't have that focus. The problem with the plasma gun isn't a symptom of this, it's a seperate problem in its own right that just happens to overlap with this supposed issue.
Beyond that, being able to wade through buckets of firepower is why characters wear power armour in the first place, and it applies as much to Sisters Militant (TB3, AV8, total of 12 damage needed to cause a single wound) as to Space Marines.
Hellebore said:
Why would there need to be an official stance on it now? As it stands, the only Space Marine in the game is a single NPC in a single scenario... the game doesn't need to support them in any official capacity yet, as that's what Deathwatch is/will be for. FFG can't produce rules and official rulings for everything we'd like them to detail all at once - they do, afterall, have books to produce, and I think that takes precedence over fringe matters like this one.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
Your preference. My tendancy is to resolve all the static modifiers before rolling the dice, so it's 1d10+(SB-2) as far as I'm concerned (I was getting it mixed up with unarmed attacks (1d5-3) before), which ends up with 1d10+6 damage... and suddenly, a Space Marine can throw a rock with more force than he'd get if he just shot someone... yes, the Bolter has advantages beyond that, but it still seems faintly ludicrous... but as I said before, reduce their strength and you trivialise Space Marines...
40k never distinguished between the strength of Orks and the strength of Humans either... doesn't mean there's not a difference. As for the appearance of astartes-style bolters on catachan models.... and? That's solely the appearance of the weapon, and says nothing about scale (and comes primarily from the tendancy of GW's sculptors to use established components - skulls, weapons, purity seals, shoulder pads, etc - to save re-sculpting every little item on a new model).
That's flawed logic, it doesn't mean there IS a difference either, it just means no difference was represented. Bolters in 40k have always been described in the same manner, the 2nd ed wargear book covererd bolter in general and referred to it as used by astartes because of its shock value. the gun has never been divided from itself in the background until now. As I've said, I'm 'ok' with that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it's functioning as intended all along by 40k designers, because it wasn't and hasn't. It's part of the ramping up of marines, the concerted effort to turn them into absurd figures in order to sell more. Marines used to be worth 10 normal troops according to Dorn, now they are worth a thousand or more (see Brotherhood of the Snake for some of the most ridiculous offenses). Obviously the Dezmond's of the world prefer their stories full of mindless musclebound marine porn because GW keeps catering to it, going further and further as time goes on to make them better and better.
It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be rationalised. It's simply a marketting exercise by GW to try and sell marines. That's what businesses do, although I think it is to the detriment of the setting because you then end up with overcompensation in the background and/or just blatant favouratism to the point where you'd have to be a masachist to like anything other than marines the level of humiliation that is heaped upon non marine armies and races.
I feel ashamed to play marines these days. I haven't used my space wolf or Salamander armies in years because they just remind me of the lengths GW have gone to pimp them.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
Yes it can be. It isn't, but it can be.
As it stands, 2d10 X Pen 5 doesn't actually produce significantly higher damage than 1d10+5 Pen 4. It's marginally better against armoured targets, and has a much higher maximum damage... but it's also got a lower minimum damage, and the averages are virtually the same. I've made my own attempt to rationalise the matter elsewhere, and repeated it several times, but the point remains that it's the official direction that BI took, and it appears to be as much a token choice to push the damage a little higher than the Marines can achieve on their own, as it is anything else.
Should a marine not be able to punch with the power of a bullet? Is that a problem? If a marine throws a rock at someones head won't it smash their face in? If no then the damage values for guns in general are too low. It has to balance all ways, not just artificially increase the damage of a specific gun because the rules created around that character inadvertantly make their fists into bolter shells.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
Big whoop, so house rule it. Every GM I've ever met in person does that with every game they run, and the only place I've ever encountered reluctance to house rule games is on the D&D forums, where the idea of a GM who thinks independently is often seen as abhorrent.
You know, as much as I love house rules, as much as I enjoy making my own RPG rules, that doesn't make the 'just house rule it' excuse valid. the rules are meant to cover the playing of the game. They even have a rule that allows for low damage to be increased on a lucky roll. However they specifically wrote a rule that prevents NPCs from using it unless they are 'important named NPCs'. Thus they WANT the rules to function a certain way and that certain way is to have tough, power armour wearing characters be completely immune to incoming light arms fire. If that is not their intent, then they have made a mistake and it should be errated. If it is deliberate then by the rules as written AND intended they want tough and armoured individuals to be able to wade through a million people with lasguns completely unharmed. To me that breaks any kind of immersion in the game. It gets ridiculous. Enough fire power should be able to bring someone down. Even the 40k background has pimped marines to the level that they are completely immune to concentrated light arms fire (yet).
N0-1_H3r3 said:
TS Luikart's volley fire rules were, as he mentioned at the time, part of his musings about Astartes characters and Deathwatch (and would only have allowed Guardsmen with lasguns to fire in groups of 18 anyway, dealing 1d10+19 damage). They aren't needed in Dark Heresy, except when Space Marines are brought in for anything more than a cameo, because Dark Heresy doesn't have that focus. The problem with the plasma gun isn't a symptom of this, it's a seperate problem in its own right that just happens to overlap with this supposed issue.
Beyond that, being able to wade through buckets of firepower is why characters wear power armour in the first place, and it applies as much to Sisters Militant (TB3, AV8, total of 12 damage needed to cause a single wound) as to Space Marines.
Yes, marines are just the most obvious example. Power armoured non marine PCs are also going to be completely immune to small arms when they have a high enough toughness. Don't you think that the rules should be able to handle those eventualities (not exactly esoteric or unexpected considering the existence of power armour in the game and the effects TB and armour have on damage)? A good rules system should function well in most situations, we can't be perfect, but this isn't exactly an unusual or one in a million situation. A plasma gun now won't do much damage to a power armoured PC, despite their fearsome reputation. The effectiveness for them is so low in fact in DH that, with the instability, low clip size and weight, you wonder why anyone would use them at all. So does this mean plasma and melta guns are not functioning as intended by the designers and writers of the game? If they aren't, then errata is the way to go. If they are, then they have deliberately decided to make a space marine bolter better at destroying tanks than a plasma gun despite the latter being a special weapon choice for Tactical squads. The marine would be better off taking a bolter.
It is important to know design intent as well as function. if the designers INTENDED for plasma guns to suck then there isn't much that can be done. Do you think they wanted them to suck this much? Do you think that had they wanted plasma guns to be better than marine bolters they would have made them better? You are either left with defending their actions and trying to justify supersuck plasma guns, or have to admit they made a mistake and it should be higher. My opinion is that they WANTED them like that. So on the one hand I'm complementing them on not making a typo and on the other disliking the decision because of the comparative uselessness of a gun that backgroundwise is the next best thing after a melta gun for taking out tanks.
N0-1_H3r3 said:
Why would there need to be an official stance on it now? As it stands, the only Space Marine in the game is a single NPC in a single scenario... the game doesn't need to support them in any official capacity yet, as that's what Deathwatch is/will be for. FFG can't produce rules and official rulings for everything we'd like them to detail all at once - they do, afterall, have books to produce, and I think that takes precedence over fringe matters like this one.
They made a massive Errata document, one where they changed quite a few fundamental things in the game (like Tearing bolters, higher damage Accurate weapons) and yet nothing on plasma weapons or melta weapons. If they had enough time to do that, then saying that all plasma and melta pistol and basic weapons do an additional 1D10 damage would not be hard in the slightest.
If the rules don't work NOW without house ruling, then it means they'll have to rewrite them later. Having rules that function properly at all scales is something that should exist as part of the basic core rules, not as something you have to fix in an additional game.
Either way, the rules will either have to be changed to make them work more in keeping with their function, or they'll stick with them and say that plasmaguns simply suck compared to the bolters used by marines.
Hellebore
Apologies if anyone has mentioned this already but I didn't spot it. The Storm Bolter was given stats back in the Black Industries days by one of the writers (can't mind who), it was thus:
Class: Basic
Range: 90m
RoF: S/2/6
Dam: 1d10+5 X
Pen: 4
Clip: 48 (many stormbolters carry two clips of 24 though)
Rld: 2Full
Wt: 14 Kg
Cost: 1,000
Avail: Very Rare
That's a maiden's stormbolter, right? Because it's weaker than a Godwyn Pattern bolt pistol.
As for inquisitor/Catachan using marines' bolters, maybe on the mini, but certainly not in the fluff, since the use of a bolter requires wearing a power armor. Even for these badass Catachan. The thing breaks your arm if you're tough, or sends it flying if you're not.
Astartes heavy bolters are not .75 caliber, but 1.00.
I have no problem with Astartes using more powerful plasma guns than the Imperial Guard. It's not unseen for some 40k license games to take this path: the first example that comes to my mind is Dawn of War. Well, it's only "semi-canon", but it does seem to make sense.
Werewindlefr said:
That's a maiden's stormbolter, right? Because it's weaker than a Godwyn Pattern bolt pistol.
As for inquisitor/Catachan using marines' bolters, maybe on the mini, but certainly not in the fluff, since the use of a bolter requires wearing a power armor. Even for these badass Catachan. The thing breaks your arm if you're tough, or sends it flying if you're not.
Astartes heavy bolters are not .75 caliber, but 1.00.
I have no problem with Astartes using more powerful plasma guns than the Imperial Guard. It's not unseen for some 40k license games to take this path: the first example that comes to my mind is Dawn of War. Well, it's only "semi-canon", but it does seem to make sense.
There has never ever been anything that says you need to wear power armour to use a bolter. Why in 2nd ed ORKS carried bolters and anyone in Necromunda could and still can use a bolter.
There isn't anything I've seen that lists the calibre size of a heavy bolter. The only calibre listed I've ever seen in 40k is the 0.75 for the boltgun. Nothing else.
A plasmagun at the moment in DH can't be used for its purpose, that is taking down vehicles and heavy infantry. If it sucked that much then the guard just wouldn't use it. They'd issue BOLTERS as special weapons.
Hellebore
Darkshroud said:
Class: Basic
Range: 90m
RoF: S/2/6
Dam: 1d10+5 X
Pen: 4
Clip: 48 (many stormbolters carry two clips of 24 though)
Rld: 2Full
Wt: 14 Kg
Cost: 1,000
Avail: Very Rare
this is the only sane post in this entire thread
Hellebore said:
"NPC's can't Righteous Fury" is an example of a legacy rule (as TS Luikart mentioned when he posted his Volley Fire rules), a rule carried over from a previous iteration of the game where (in context) it made sense. It makes less sense now, certainly, but anyone with the sense to see that Rules As Written is a crutch, not an ideal, can tell that it's out of place in the current rules.
Personally, because I roll all my dice behind the screen, I award and rescind the right to Righteous Fury on a whim, allowing NPCs to get in those lucky shots when it's appropriate and removing it when it would slow things down or inconvenience the ongoing story. By and large, most NPCs don't benefit from it, primarily because it's unnecessary and slows things down when resolving combats with multiple enemies, and because even for the party members who are that heavily armoured, wearing that degree of armour is something saved for special occasions (as dealt with by my ruling that results in power armour taking two hours to don without the assistance of an arming servitor or similar servant, and by the fact that it's far from subtle)
Hellebore said:
How often do you find your group in combats of sufficient size and intensity that special rules for massed fire are usable, let alone appropriate? In my campaign, which has been running for about a year now, only twice has it happened. The first time, it didn't matter one way or the other (I up-gunned the Dark Eldar, adding +2 to all Splinter Weapon damage compared to their stats in PtU, and gave them a few weapons, mainly because my group was significantly more dangerous than the hypothetical group the adventure seemed to be written for), and their Pen values made up for the heavy armour worn by some of the Acolytes, and none of the characters walked (or limped, or were carried) away unharmed. The second was an encounter with poorly-armed mutant terrorists, whose most powerful weapon was the lasgun, and whose coordination and skill was sorely lacking, and who were ambushed with such brutal efficiency that they didn't get a chance to attack in any worthwhile numbers anyway...
,,,situations like that, where massed fire rules are needed in Dark Heresy, in my experience, are a rarity. Facing down three mutants with autoguns is a situation where the power armoured character should justifiably be invulnerable for all practical purposes.
Massed battle, where the enemy has the numbers, coordination and equipment to handle enemies who are clad in the raiment of tanks... shouldn't be a frequent enough occurence in Dark Heresy to warrant the page space.
Hellebore said:
Agreed, and it's lamentable that by the time we had any reasonable point of comparison (beyond the lascannon) to weigh the plasma and melta guns against, the rulebook playtest was over and we couldn't do anything about it. Personally, I'm hopeful that it'll be addressed in a forthcoming errata - certainly, the last one made my bolters houserule (give them all Tearing) redundant.
Hellebore said:
Agreed, but then, similarly adding in the information on disposable grenade launchers and disposable missile launchers from the playtest draft of The Inquisitor's Handbook should similarly be well within their ability (remembering that the Errata was written and compiled at least in part by members of the community)...
Personally, though, I still feel that you're merging together two issues - the first being the nigh-invulnerability of power armoured characters (justifiable because, when working on the scale of combats, that are typically encountered in Dark Heresy, massed fire isn't exactly something that happens all that often, so whether or not an Imperial Guard platoon can fell a Space Marine is a niche issue at the moment, but won't be for Deathwatch, much as interstellar trade and starship combat are niche issues for DH but not for Rogue Trader), the second being the ludicrously ineffective rules for the plasma and melta guns. IMO, those are two distinct matters (with some overlap, admittedly).
from france
"The biggest problem for me is a lack of righteous fury for NPCs. TS Luikart put up his volley fire rules, but the offical rules do not contain anything that allows 100 billion guardsmen with lasguns to kill a single space marine, which in my opinion they should. I'm hoping that FFG will be creating something that will allow for this otherwise it breaks apart. A plasma gun isn't even going to do much damage to a marine, with an average of ~17 damage against a TB6 Armour 8/9 character. but that is how FFG/GW currently have the rules."
interresting point very interresting. in the tabletop game it need 7 guard to kill with their lasgun 1 space marine not a scout not a terminator a space marine because. you ned the one good probabily. a failed save 1/2 and a failed tougness... so my question is because lasgun and a lot of weapon haven't any chance per the rules of dark heresy to go trought the armour of a space marine like the "one of purge the unclean" why there is no rule for a lucky shot. you know the kind of shot who existe in the novel. th kind of shot who penetrate the armor at the joint and kill a marine.
same question for sword strike any way.
i apologies for this digression on the subject but i didn't find a topics on this and i also apology if niam not particulary clear but it 's late... thank for your kindness
the 8 spider said:
interresting point very interresting. in the tabletop game it need 7 guard to kill with their lasgun 1 space marine not a scout not a terminator a space marine because. you ned the one good probabily. a failed save 1/2 and a failed tougness... so my question is because lasgun and a lot of weapon haven't any chance per the rules of dark heresy to go trought the armour of a space marine like the "one of purge the unclean" why there is no rule for a lucky shot. you know the kind of shot who existe in the novel. th kind of shot who penetrate the armor at the joint and kill a marine.
same question for sword strike any way.
I don't have my book handy, but there is a critical hit rule. Any roll of a natural 10 for determining damage results in a second "to hit" roll. If you hit again, you score another d10 damage and add it to the total. If the second damage roll comes up a 10, you add it to the first 10 and roll again. You keep rolling d10's after this and adding the result to the total until you stop rolling 10's. NOTE: you only roll to hit on the first and second rolls. After that it's just damage rolls as long as you keep getting max damage.
Example:
1st Roll = hit (d10 damage)
if 10, roll percentile dice to hit.
2nd roll = hit (damage is now 10 +1d10)
if second damage is 10, roll another d10 for damage.
3rd roll = 7, final damage is 27 (or 20 + 1d10 + weapon damage bonus.).
In this scenario a bolter causing this critical would score 32 damage (27 for the crit rolling plus 5 for the weapon damage bonus.)
Now that's a lucky shot.... and enough to kill most characters no matter what their armor or toughness bonus are.
Well as was mentioned previously in the thread, that rule is specifically banned from NPCs unless they are named (see pg 195 bottom of page box titled Righteous Fury!) so it doesn't matter how many NPCs you have with lasguns, if you have 13 damage reduction they can't hurt you.
As this has not been errated out of the rules, one can only surmise this is working as intended and anyone with TB5 and power armour (or best quality power armour and TB4) is immune to lasguns all the time.
Hellebore
Hellebore said:
Well as was mentioned previously in the thread, that rule is specifically banned from NPCs unless they are named (see pg 195 bottom of page box titled Righteous Fury!) so it doesn't matter how many NPCs you have with lasguns, if you have 13 damage reduction they can't hurt you.
As this has not been errated out of the rules, one can only surmise this is working as intended and anyone with TB5 and power armour (or best quality power armour and TB4) is immune to lasguns all the time.
Hellebore
I don't consider myself a master of the rules by any stretch of the imagination yet, so is there a way for NPC's to degrade your armor rating? In D&D 3e weapons and armor could be sundered. Is there a provision for this in Dark Heresy?
From what I can tell Nope (but I'm a Nubie GM for this system), once you armor up to a set point the only thing you have to fear about Laz-Guns and Autoguns is a "Righteous Fury" event, thankfualy without "Power Fields" and Best quality Power Armor their is no way to acheave this level of Armor in the game ATM, and even Power Fields are no suere bet.