Jump to content



Photo

Into the Storm weapon PEN shenanigans


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Fresnel

Fresnel

    Member

  • Members
  • 539 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:43 AM

WilliamAsher said:

I forgot to add that it has integral silencer and top rail to mount desired scope.  The party Arch Militant has SP weapons as his specialty and uses either Explosive Tipped or Blessed ammo.  With the explosive tipped it does 1d10+10 (Pen 3) damage in his hands.

In the Real World ™, silencers are useless on any projectile weapon with a supersonic velocity - for obvious reasons.



#22 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 04:18 PM

Cpt. Harkonnen said:

Ok, 1st off.. a .50 sniper rifle is WAY too complex of a gun for the 41st Millennium. This is 40k where even the most basic of things we take for granted here in the now is considered Arechotech.  Furthermore, this game is about flavor, not substance like stats and min/max.  Kills me to see so many people concerned with game stats than with the flavor or spirit of the game. Most weapons in Rogue Trader all do the same amount of damage with a +/- a few points.  Rogue Trader is kind of like Star Wars in the fact that its Space Opera more than it is Sci-fi.

Serve the Emporer today, you may be dead tomorrow…

In a setting where caseless ammo gun that can easily swap between magazines (something that is hard to do today even), with all kinds of exotic ammo. They have laserguns, powered armor, giant mecha, starships, FTL, amazing efficiency and so much more.

Archeotech is simply put, AMAZING, it is efficient, durable and powerful. It outstrips our modern tech overall, the only area where modern day humans have better tech would be in computers, and in the 40k setting they outstripped us there too, even getting fully sentient. So they regressed in that area because of the risk of robotic uprisings and chaos infesting and corrupting their tech.

Besides, they have heavy stubbers (possibly around .50 cal) and autocannons (repeating powerful cannons that fire explosive ammo)

If a player wants a .50 Cal Sniper Rifle (for this example, let's take a heavy stubber, make it S/-/- and accurate with an appropiate sized magazine), what is the issue, it won't even be as good as the Angelus Bolt Carbine and the Sniper Bolter (both of which have great damage, more pen and tearing WITH accurate), so it hits weaker, will be big and heavy, obvious to see (but will have cheaper ammo). So why does it matter? It won't be a game breaker, just a more powerful hunting rifle and even harder to conceal



#23 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 08:02 PM

Cymbel said:

Besides, they have heavy stubbers (possibly around .50 cal) and autocannons (repeating powerful cannons that fire explosive ammo)

The heavy stubber is typically described and operated more like a .30 cal/7.62mm GPMG rather than a .50 cal HMG. As for autocannons, the fluff is that they have lost the technology to make explosive ammuntion for them and these are instead firing large solid projectiles which may range from .50 cal (but likely larger) up to 40mm depending on sources. I do find it a bit odd that there is no difference between the man-portable autocannon and the main gun of a Predator tank since it should be easy to have light autocannons and heavy autocannons (no, not battle cannons - those are considerably larger) differentiated in the rules.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#24 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:46 PM

In 40k, the realm of REEDICULOUS calibers, I don't think it is crazy to assume that a pintle mounted heavy machine gun on a tank that has ridiciously huge weapons (even the humble chimera) would be .50 cal. Even, for some reason, it isn't, so what? 40k has no problem with guns, let alone a simple bolt action 50 cal weapon.

Second, on the autocannon, I remember seeing somewhere that autocannons are not AS good as they used to be (they used to have even better explosives), but ONLY solid? You would have to bring some proof and citations, thankfully I have. From the Inquisitor's Handbook on Autocannons:

Autocannons use cased, explosive shells fired at a high rate to destroy their target.

I would rather not check every iteration of W40k RPG for the flavor text, but that example AND the extremely powerful damage (more like an exploding high velocity shell) seem to fit with the commonly held view that 40k autocannons are similar to modern day ones



#25 Boss Gitsmasha

Boss Gitsmasha

    Member

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 09:56 PM

The Heavy Stubber does too little damage to be a .50 cal, and it does roughly the same damage as an Armageddon Autogun, which is along the lines of a BAR or an M14. So the Heavy Stubber seems to be based off of an M60 or a Browning M1919, though its weight is far greater than it should be for a weapon of that class. Heavy Stubber is 35kg/77 lbs, Browning M2 .50 cal is 38kg/83 lbs, not including the tripod. By comparison, the M60 is 10.5kg/23 lbs.

Also, If I recall, the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer says that the explosive autocannon shell has been lost and thus they are forced to rely on solid slugs. However, this is the same book that says Genestealer claws are blunt and puny and that a Guardsman should recite the "Litany of Stealth" while attempting to surprise-attack someone, so it should be taken with a grain of salt at best.

Even if they actually did lose the explosive autocannon shells (which I'm sure they haven't), they are still perfectly capable of making explosive shells for the assault cannon (see: Deathwatch, any given Space Marine codex) and a wide variety of explosive bolter shell.

Hmmm…

"Esteemed High Magos, I have, uh, 'discovered' an ancient STC of explosive autocannon shells. I suggest we put them into production at once, in accordance with the blueprints I've… also discovered. I'm sorry, Beneficent One?… Uh, Y-Yes, of course it looks like the assault cannon shell! This is, um, a testament to the genius of the STC and the Machine God's design! If it works, then logically it would be best to pattern after it, r-right?"


"Oomans are pink an' soft, not tough an' green like da Boyz. Dey'z all da same size too, so dey'z always arguin' about who's in charge, 'cos dere's no way o' tellin' c'ept fer badges an' ooniforms an' fings. When one o' dem wants ta lord it over da uvvers, 'e says 'I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me', or 'I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good'. Da funny fing is, 'arf of 'em believe it an' da uvver 'arf don't, so 'e has ta hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. Wot a lot o' mukkin' about if yer asks me. An' while dey'z all arguin' wiv each uvver over who's da boss, da Orks can clobber da lot."


#26 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:37 AM

Cymbel said:

Second, on the autocannon, I remember seeing somewhere that autocannons are not AS good as they used to be (they used to have even better explosives), but ONLY solid? You would have to bring some proof and citations, thankfully I have. From the Inquisitor's Handbook on Autocannons:

Autocannons use cased, explosive shells fired at a high rate to destroy their target.

I would rather not check every iteration of W40k RPG for the flavor text, but that example AND the extremely powerful damage (more like an exploding high velocity shell) seem to fit with the commonly held view that 40k autocannons are similar to modern day ones

Take a look at either Black Crusade or Only War and you'll get this line:

An autocannon is a crew-served heavy weapon, a self-loading high calibre cannon that uses dense solid shells to punch through armour.

Note that these are both far more recent sources than the one you cited. Also note that ALL autocannons (including the one from the Inquisitor's Handbook) do Impact damage. If they were meant to be firing explosive shells, then the damage would be of the Explosive type.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#27 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 11:52 AM

Boss Gitsmasha said:

Even if they actually did lose the explosive autocannon shells (which I'm sure they haven't), they are still perfectly capable of making explosive shells for the assault cannon (see: Deathwatch, any given Space Marine codex) and a wide variety of explosive bolter shell.

Hmmm…

"Esteemed High Magos, I have, uh, 'discovered' an ancient STC of explosive autocannon shells. I suggest we put them into production at once, in accordance with the blueprints I've… also discovered. I'm sorry, Beneficent One?… Uh, Y-Yes, of course it looks like the assault cannon shell! This is, um, a testament to the genius of the STC and the Machine God's design! If it works, then logically it would be best to pattern after it, r-right?"

It's never wise to assume that Imperial technology can bridge even the tinniest gaps. To them the ammo for an assault cannon and the ammo for an autocannon are quite different.  The range of the Autocannon is also far greater than that of the assault cannon, so it likely fires its rounds at higher velocities - which is something that would benefit firing solid slugs far more than explosive rounds.

Incidentally, the assault cannon also inflicts Impact damage. There needs to be a change to either the damage type (to Explosive) or to the fluff that says it uses explosive rounds.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#28 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:32 PM

HappyDaze said:

 

Cymbel said:

 

Second, on the autocannon, I remember seeing somewhere that autocannons are not AS good as they used to be (they used to have even better explosives), but ONLY solid? You would have to bring some proof and citations, thankfully I have. From the Inquisitor's Handbook on Autocannons:

Autocannons use cased, explosive shells fired at a high rate to destroy their target.

I would rather not check every iteration of W40k RPG for the flavor text, but that example AND the extremely powerful damage (more like an exploding high velocity shell) seem to fit with the commonly held view that 40k autocannons are similar to modern day ones

 

 

Take a look at either Black Crusade or Only War and you'll get this line:

An autocannon is a crew-served heavy weapon, a self-loading high calibre cannon that uses dense solid shells to punch through armour.

Note that these are both far more recent sources than the one you cited. Also note that ALL autocannons (including the one from the Inquisitor's Handbook) do Impact damage. If they were meant to be firing explosive shells, then the damage would be of the Explosive type.

 

 

So? The autocannon can fire solid shells and for armor piercing duties, those are great, but it doesn't say anywhere there about how they are unable to fire explosive shells, nor how the tech to them is lost beyond the grasp of man. On the damage type, it could be a typo, FFG may make great books, but there are definitely mistakes within them.

However, why don't we get an answer from FFG? Or at the very least show sources from other FFG works showing that explosive rounds in Autocannons never ever exist or are ever used, ever. Besides, this is 40k, the canon and tech are so schizo at times that some worlds use solid shell autocannons, others explosive, most a mix

 

 

Edit:

http://wh40k.lexican...on#.UOYxYqNOztQ

The best source for 40k canon says they fire both



#29 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 03:24 PM

Cymbel said:

 

HappyDaze said:

 

Cymbel said:

 

Second, on the autocannon, I remember seeing somewhere that autocannons are not AS good as they used to be (they used to have even better explosives), but ONLY solid? You would have to bring some proof and citations, thankfully I have. From the Inquisitor's Handbook on Autocannons:

Autocannons use cased, explosive shells fired at a high rate to destroy their target.

I would rather not check every iteration of W40k RPG for the flavor text, but that example AND the extremely powerful damage (more like an exploding high velocity shell) seem to fit with the commonly held view that 40k autocannons are similar to modern day ones

 

 

Take a look at either Black Crusade or Only War and you'll get this line:

An autocannon is a crew-served heavy weapon, a self-loading high calibre cannon that uses dense solid shells to punch through armour.

Note that these are both far more recent sources than the one you cited. Also note that ALL autocannons (including the one from the Inquisitor's Handbook) do Impact damage. If they were meant to be firing explosive shells, then the damage would be of the Explosive type.

 

 

So? The autocannon can fire solid shells and for armor piercing duties, those are great, but it doesn't say anywhere there about how they are unable to fire explosive shells, nor how the tech to them is lost beyond the grasp of man. On the damage type, it could be a typo, FFG may make great books, but there are definitely mistakes within them.

However, why don't we get an answer from FFG? Or at the very least show sources from other FFG works showing that explosive rounds in Autocannons never ever exist or are ever used, ever. Besides, this is 40k, the canon and tech are so schizo at times that some worlds use solid shell autocannons, others explosive, most a mix

 

 

Edit:

http://wh40k.lexican...on#.UOYxYqNOztQ

The best source for 40k canon says they fire both

 

 

Why don't you show me a single example of an Autocannon statted up to do Explosive (X) damage in an FFG book? I don't think it's a typo when all of them consistently do Impact (I) damage.

As for Lexicanum, I don't consider it the best source for anything related to the RPGs.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#30 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:08 PM

And the other ones use solid shells only, of course they do impact. I was just saying it COULD be a thing on this one, knowing that they use explosive ammo in them.

Lexicanum is a great source for 40k fluff and acknowledged as one of the best to be honest. And look, I showed you a link with sources that said Autocannons fire explosive ammo. Can you find me sources where there never can be an autocannon that fires explosive ammo ever? And that Autocannons can ONLY fire solid slugs, because the Imperium has no ability to put an explosive inside a large shell?



#31 CegorachLaughs

CegorachLaughs

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:55 PM

Cymbel said:

Archeotech is simply put, AMAZING, it is efficient, durable and powerful. It outstrips our modern tech overall, the only area where modern day humans have better tech would be in computers, and in the 40k setting they outstripped us there too, even getting fully sentient. So they regressed in that area because of the risk of robotic uprisings and chaos infesting and corrupting their tech.

I would dispute that point. While 40K obviously has some pretty strict limits on how they use computers and computer equivalents, the things they can do with them are pretty damn awesome. Sure, they don't hook everything up in networks (because that would be just asking for scrapcode and such to do horrible, horrible things to them), but something like the MIU or cyber familiars or the various other augmentations and implants (or, hell, the semi-ai in some Imperial vehicles) are certainly not inferior to modern technology. I'd say that, as with most 40K things, they have stuff that is inferior to modern stuff, stuff that is at modern levels, and stuff that is so far beyond modern stuff it's flat out amazing, at varying levels of use in various places, with higher-end stuff mostly confined to the the Mechanicus. Although it's not necessarily developed along the same line as our technology seems to be developing, given their love of organic integration, servitors and the like..

Of course that's disregarding the question of whether Machine Spirits are real and if so, just what they are, which may place their technology either higher or lower on a theoretical technology scale.



#32 Boss Gitsmasha

Boss Gitsmasha

    Member

  • Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

They do Impact damage because they're SP weapons. This means that the solid slugs are likely the "default" ammunition type. Obviously, if you want them to fire explosive shells, change the Damage type to (X). I don't see what's so difficult about this. Bows are capable of doing (X) damage even though they're statted up to do ® damage, by virtue of explosive arrows.

Besides, weapons are perfectly capable of accepting different kinds of ammunition, and these different kinds of ammunition may alter a weapon's default stat line in a way. You're arguing over nothing.


"Oomans are pink an' soft, not tough an' green like da Boyz. Dey'z all da same size too, so dey'z always arguin' about who's in charge, 'cos dere's no way o' tellin' c'ept fer badges an' ooniforms an' fings. When one o' dem wants ta lord it over da uvvers, 'e says 'I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me', or 'I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good'. Da funny fing is, 'arf of 'em believe it an' da uvver 'arf don't, so 'e has ta hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. Wot a lot o' mukkin' about if yer asks me. An' while dey'z all arguin' wiv each uvver over who's da boss, da Orks can clobber da lot."


#33 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

Apocalypse, Pg.107

The Hydra Flak-Tank is a specialised vehicle used for mobile air defence, based on the Chimera chassis. The Flak-tank can often be seen defending Imperial Guard columns and artillery positions from arial attacks, its long-barrelled autocannons sweeping the skies and unleashing a hail of explosive shells

Imperial Armour Volume One - Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy, Pg. 171

…, its four long barreled auto-cannons sweeping the skies and unleashing a wall of explosive shells.

Imperial Armour Volume One - Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy, Pg. 205

(Shows various Autocannon shells, no further details given)

Multiple descriptions of Autocannons firing explosive rounds AND having multiple rounds for different effects. And guess what? There is no issue with them using solid rounds, solid rounds have superior effects in some situations, like penetrating armor, while explosive rounds would work better in other situations.



#34 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:03 AM

On the heavy stubber being a small caliber, doesn't it look like this? (http://en.wikipedia....iki/M2_Browning)

Which, like the Heavy Stubber is used, is a heavy machine gun and a pintle weapon (though as an infantry weapon Stubbers are used less, mainly due to the heavy bolter)



#35 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:25 AM

Cymbel said:

On the heavy stubber being a small caliber, doesn't it look like this? (http://en.wikipedia....iki/M2_Browning)

Which, like the Heavy Stubber is used, is a heavy machine gun and a pintle weapon (though as an infantry weapon Stubbers are used less, mainly due to the heavy bolter)

Nope, to me, it's more like this:

Or, for man-portable (with the option for a tripod) like this:

 

Those are both .30 cal M1919s (an A4 for the first, and an A6 for the second).

 

 


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#36 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:33 AM

Really?

They seem pretty big to me

 

 

 



#37 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:20 AM

The second image you show is most certainly more appropriate for an autocannon, but here's a picture from Lexicanum (I loathe to use them, but it'll do):

 

As for an autocannon, look at this:

That sure looks similar (aside from a different ammo cassette) to the twin-linked weapon the Death Korps were using in your image.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#38 Cymbel

Cymbel

    Member

  • Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:47 PM

First off, pictures without scale don't help us, so let's stick to official ones where they are holding them

Heavy Stubber (4)

VS

For a direct comparison in size with the same model, the same trooper, same perspective. What we can see is:

HEAVY STUBBERS ARE HUGE

Which fits the fluff, they are massive machine guns who use the antiquated stubber ammo (so have to be bigger to compensate).But they are used because they are cheap and hit pretty hard still, though not the most effective weapon.

 

Back to how big autocannons are


 

Just for comparison's sake, here is a Heavy Bolter


 



#39 Kadaeux

Kadaeux

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

Cpt. Harkonnen said:

Ok, 1st off.. a .50 sniper rifle is WAY too complex of a gun for the 41st Millennium. This is 40k where even the most basic of things we take for granted here in the now is considered Arechotech.  Furthermore, this game is about flavor, not substance like stats and min/max.  Kills me to see so many people concerned with game stats than with the flavor or spirit of the game. Most weapons in Rogue Trader all do the same amount of damage with a +/- a few points.  Rogue Trader is kind of like Star Wars in the fact that its Space Opera more than it is Sci-fi.

Serve the Emporer today, you may be dead tomorrow…

 

50 calibre weapons are common in 40k. 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS