PDA

View Full Version : Does it feel weird that an infantry/tank/jet lascannon all use the same stats?



OgreBattle
03-10-2012, 06:37
Lascannon on a space marine's shoulder
Lascannon inside of a tank turret
Lascannon sponson on a landraider
Lascannon turret hanging off a valkyrie's wing

all are the same 48" s9 ap2 heavy 1 weapon. Does that feel weird to any of you?
This applies to any heavy weapon really.

MajorWesJanson
03-10-2012, 06:48
Not really. Think of say a Browning 50 cal. Same when it is mounted on an Abrams, on a man portible tripod, or as a door gun in a helicopter. True, it is not a heavy weapon, but the point is that a single weapon design can be used in multiple mounts and operate the same way. Some of the more subtle changes that could differentiate mountings are things that are not reflect in game mechanics. A Land Raider lascannon likely has some sort of gyrostabilization and some backup equipment making it a tad more accurate and reliable, while the man portable one is stripped down and only has a dozen shots with a backpack generator before running out. A tank mounted one could have enhanced cooling mechanisms reducing heat wear on the mechanism and making parts last longer before needing maintenance.

Voss
03-10-2012, 06:55
Lascannon on a space marine's shoulder
Lascannon inside of a tank turret
Lascannon sponson on a landraider
Lascannon turret hanging off a valkyrie's wing

all are the same 48" s9 ap2 heavy 1 weapon. Does that feel weird to any of you?
This applies to any heavy weapon really.

Nope. There are bigger and smaller things that have different profiles and we are seeing more of them again these days - long awaited after the big consolidation of 3rd. It is exactly why the Vulcan megabolter and macrocannon are in the big rulebook

OgreBattle
03-10-2012, 06:56
Not really. Think of say a Browning 50 cal. Same when it is mounted on an Abrams

That works, but I picked the lascannon because it's a big, meaty armor penetrator.
So it's like an Apache attack helicopter and a battle tank having the same armament, except the Apache has 3 cannons.


... or maybe IG style "big heavy weapon you only find on vehicles" cannons should be found across all armies.

Cap'n Facebeard
03-10-2012, 07:12
You could argue that there are differences, its just that they are too minor to be represented in game, ie the tank lascannon is really Strength 9.5.

As MajorWes says, size differences could be due to the tank versions having stuff built in that an infantrymen could see to himself, such as extra-resilient barrels, cooling systems, etc. Also differences between the IG and Marine ones could be due to Marines having better kit.

The Marshel
03-10-2012, 07:23
when you're comparing the rather large lascannons on a landraider to the ones carried by the marines its a bit odd yeah, but i tend to think it makes more sense if the difference isn't large enough to justify any variance. Basically i figure that while a land raiders large lascannon is stronger then the marine carried one, the difference isn't enough to get that +1 strength

nedius
03-10-2012, 07:56
If I were to pick a 'isn't it wierd ' with heavy weapons it would be that when firing Frag missiles, a SM or Tau (with all the advanced targeting systems they'd have available) are no more accurate than an ork with a rokkit-onna-stick. In fact, nothing - no tank, no dedicated missile launching system, is any more accurate than an ork. But, swap it out for a Krak missile and suddenly there's a world of difference in targeting ability.

ehlijen
03-10-2012, 08:33
Take the german 88mm from WW2. It was the same gun, regardless of whether it was mounted on a flak platform, an AT-gun carriage or a Tiger tank.

But also, a game becomes a lot more accessible and immersive if certain things are the same. The less different stats there are to remember, the faster new players will be comfortable with the game without having to look up rules too often. And the more names and statlines are shared in between units to make different combinations, the more the background will feel like it has internal consistency.
Let's say faction A has a light tank hunting vehicle. You could make up something new with entirely new rules, or you could take an existing chassis and put an existing gun on it to make a new combination of existing rules.

The first allows more models to be sold (which is why GW does a lot of it) but the second is actually more suited to making the unit believable (which is why GW does some of that, too).

AndrewGPaul
03-10-2012, 09:31
Bear in mind that there's a lot more variation in weapons in 40k than there used to be; once upon a time, that same lascannon was carried on the shoulders of Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Orks and Eldar Guardians (although they also had a version on a trolley), as well as being mounted on everything from a Land Raider to an Eldar Dreadnought. Orks used bolters (as did Tyranids, if you go back far enough), Eldar Guardians and Swooping Hawks, as well as Imperial Guardsmen, used lasguns.

The intention wasn't that each and every "lascannon" was exactly the same, only that they were sufficiently similar to use the same stats.

Individual8580
03-10-2012, 09:44
Maybe they never discovered the STC for "tank gun" lascans and compensate by bundling them up.

I guess having some kind of range difference could make sense. It'd represent a weaker or stronger beam without tinkering with the strenght or AP.

AndrewGPaul
03-10-2012, 10:17
How do the roleplaying games handle them? I would think that Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch/Dark Crusade/Only War would have different stats for various lascannon patterns.

Lord Damocles
03-10-2012, 10:19
The tank Lascannon will have more advanced gyro stabilisers, recoil dampeners, larger capacity power packs etc. - but none of that is represented (or needs representing) in game.

The Marshel
03-10-2012, 10:24
If I were to pick a 'isn't it weird ' with heavy weapons it would be that when firing Frag missiles, a SM or Tau (with all the advanced targeting systems they'd have available) are no more accurate than an ork with a rokkit-onna-stick. In fact, nothing - no tank, no dedicated missile launching system, is any more accurate than an ork. But, swap it out for a Krak missile and suddenly there's a world of difference in targeting ability.

Edit: i had maths here, but I kepted rechecking it again and again not convinced my figures where right. My point is though that because BS reduces scatter the higher your BS is the less likely you are to scatter at all. Marines for example can ignore any scatter role that results in 4 or less, compared to the ork being able to only ignore scatters of 2. this makes the marine a lot more accurate

On top of this, each point higher in bs you are, the less sever any scatter that does occur will be. the difference is deff there

trigger
03-10-2012, 10:40
Lasscanons work for me.
What dose not is guard auto cannon - marine predator auto cannon

The Marshel
03-10-2012, 10:42
Lasscanons work for me.
What dose not is guard auto cannon - marine predator auto cannon

I'm kinda hoping they become marco cannons, biggest wishlist for 6th ed, but we'll see when CSM comes out I guess

Athlan na Dyr
03-10-2012, 11:59
I'm kinda hoping they become marco cannons, biggest wishlist for 6th ed, but we'll see when CSM comes out I guess

Who wouldn't want a large blast? :p

On topic, it doesn't really feel weird because of what Imperial Tech is based on (the various STC's). Seeing as they are designed to be compatible with one another among various other functions, it makes sense that the STC for a hand carried heavy weapon is at least similar to the tank version and so on. It simplifies the production process as well, making it faster to build and easier to maintain. Add to this the power supply is likely standardised (in terms of output, not number of charges) and a lack of significant difference in stats makes sense.

That said, the outlier is the Anti-air version, which does boast a longer range.

Threeshades
03-10-2012, 12:10
It does feel weird considering that the plasma cannons, heavy bolters, lascannons etc. carried by space marine infantry have only about a quarter to one third of the mass of any vehicle mounted version of them. There should be a noticable difference in power.

Note how it is really only space marines (and chaos marines) whom this applies to. All other races have appropriately scaled guns on their vehicles, son't have any heavy weapons on their infantry, or carry their infantry weapons in weapon teams or on gun platforms that are scaled just as the vehicle weapon.
The only exception i can think of is the Tau Hammerhead's railgun vs a broadside suit's.


If I were to pick a 'isn't it wierd ' with heavy weapons it would be that when firing Frag missiles, a SM or Tau (with all the advanced targeting systems they'd have available) are no more accurate than an ork with a rokkit-onna-stick. In fact, nothing - no tank, no dedicated missile launching system, is any more accurate than an ork. But, swap it out for a Krak missile and suddenly there's a world of difference in targeting ability.

well there is 2 inches less scatter on any Marine based blast weapon than on any ork based one. And their chance to hit exactly where targeted is also slightly higher because of that. Not as much as the difference between 1/3 and 2/3 as with non-blast weapons, but there is a difference none the less.

DEADMARSH
03-10-2012, 13:26
I think the thing to remember with questions like this is long ago, back in the day, this game was written as an excuse to play with models. This is why WYSIWYG has always been so important. As there's a model for a lascannon, and it's basically the same exact model stuck on a Marine's shoulder, the turret of a tank, the wing of a Valkyrie, etc., they all have the same stats.

I've never gotten the feeling that 40k was a ruleset or a fictional universe that people made models for- it always seems as though some guys came up with some cool sci-fi models then made up a universe and a ruleset to support them. When you look at things in 40k from that point of view, they tend to make more sense.

Not to say it's all totally sensible, but it helps you see where some of the seemingly strange decisions/ rules/ instances come from.

Mauler
03-10-2012, 13:45
I'm kinda hoping they become marco cannons, biggest wishlist for 6th ed, but we'll see when CSM comes out I guess


Macro cannons are mahoosive duder, if I remember right, they're more a Titan/super-heavy weapon and would never fit on a Predator.

Although, thanks to Forgeworld we are seeing some variance in weapon families now, with the Tau's Burst Cannon & Long Barrelled Burst Cannon being prime examples. The Long Barrelled turret variant has double the range, one more Str, one less AP and twice the dice (and twin-linked, but then there is two of them so that's a given anyway). The Missile Pod & Fusion turrets get extra bits too like range (Fusion) and small blasts (both).

EDIT - Drat, someone's pointed this out already!

Konovalev
03-10-2012, 14:53
The tank Lascannon will have more advanced gyro stabilisers, recoil dampeners, larger capacity power packs etc. - but none of that is represented (or needs representing) in game.

Technically it's represented in the game in that land raiders et all can move and fire to full effect while infantry moving can only snapshot their lascannon. Terminators of course being an exception to this.

AndrewGPaul
03-10-2012, 16:29
As for autocannon, that's down to a sort of "negative creep". In the original Rogue Trader rulebook, the autocannon is described as an automatic cannon equivalent to a modern 100mm tank gun. The battlecannon, when originally introduced into 40k, was described as an oversized version used by Orks (because they're mental) and Baneblades (because they're huge). Now, the battlecannon is the tank gun equivalent and the autocannon is, what, some sort of 20mm cannon? For some reason the Rhino and Predator haven't kept up with the trend for bigger and more powerful guns on vehicles. In 1988, a pair of basic weapons was a respectable armament for an APC.

Havock
03-10-2012, 16:36
Take the german 88mm from WW2. It was the same gun, regardless of whether it was mounted on a flak platform, an AT-gun carriage or a Tiger tank.


Not entirely true, the 88/L58 was more of a continuation of the 7.5/L43 guns, it could fire the same ammunation the the 88 flaks though, whch was a smart move. But the actual guns have little in common besides being German, being guns, having the same calibre and being hated on by sherman drivers.

nedius
03-10-2012, 19:40
Edit: i had maths here, but I kepted rechecking it again and again not convinced my figures where right. My point is though that because BS reduces scatter the higher your BS is the less likely you are to scatter at all. Marines for example can ignore any scatter role that results in 4 or less, compared to the ork being able to only ignore scatters of 2. this makes the marine a lot more accurate

On top of this, each point higher in bs you are, the less sever any scatter that does occur will be. the difference is deff there

I don't know the maths, but when scattering you have a 'miss' range of 5-12" when you are an SM, and 3-12" when you are an ork. Less than those and you hit anyway. Why not just make it 'roll to hit, always scatter when missing, ignore the 'hit' on the dice? Simpler than roll to scatter, hit if you roll a hit or if it is scatter - BS. The only reason I think they keep scatter dice is so they don't have to design new ones...

But to stab at the math... all rounded.

A SM normally has a 66.77% chance to hit, an ork has 33.33%. (SM Twice as good)

If they roll scatter dice, they each have a 33.33% chance to hit. No difference for an ork. In fact, that they have a chance to hit even if they miss by rolling a 2 (2.77% chance), means they are fractionally better than if they were not using the scatter dice. An SM who misses has a 16.65% chance of hitting even if they miss. Much better than an ork, yes, but that is still LESS likely to hit over all than had they fired a Krak missile by a wide margin.

How you work out the probability that if A (66% chance) fails, then it may happen anyway (16%) is beyond me. But I'd put money on the fact it's less than 66%.

However, if they had it so you just rolled to hit, then it always scattered, the BS percentages would stand.

FashaTheDog
03-10-2012, 23:10
The difference in stats of the various versopns of a given weapon can be hand waved off as there are a grand total of 12 possible strength attacks, 0 to D. A lascannon's strength is three times that of a human, by stats, so the scale must be rise sharply making the difference in models, even from man portable to emplacement or vehicle is negligible. The AP has an even sharper scale with - to 1, resulting in a similar scale. That's why in Rogue Trader, different patterns of lasguns have differing stats; there is the room enough in the rules to make the differences more than academic.

Maidel
03-10-2012, 23:21
It used to be WAY worse when the original plastic guard squads had lascannons that were about the same size as a 6th edition marine plasma GUN. while at the same time the old landraider had lascannons about 4 times larger...


For me, it all fits now. Sure the marine carries a much smaller gun, but its wired directly into his backpack, meaning that he backpack is part of the gun. Its a bit like the current day SA80 (british rifle). It looks much shorter than the american M16, but its because of where the magasine is housed (behind rather than infront of the trigger). I see the marines guns in the same way, they have their power packs stored in their backpack, rather than as part of the gun, thus the gun is that bit shorter.

Also, the small differences (Eg hand held version can only fire 10 shots, but the tank mounted version can fire 50) would be utterly irrelevant in a normal 40K game because it only lasts 6 or so turns.

For me, the only gun that is WAY off is the auto cannon on the predator. Its a HUGE tank gun, whereas the guard infantry version simply isnt even in the same ball park. If it had a longer range it would make sense, but as someone pointed out above, its one of those left overs from rogue trader thats never been truely remedied.

Grimbad
04-10-2012, 00:01
What bugs me is that the Vendetta has so many lascannons without losing carrying ability, while the Razorback gives up space for half a squad to mount just one linked gun.

Grimdesign
04-10-2012, 01:01
Not really. Think of say a Browning 50 cal. Same when it is mounted on an Abrams, on a man portible tripod, or as a door gun in a helicopter. True, it is not a heavy weapon

Oh i don't know, the weapon feels pretty heavy to lug around, not including spare barrels and ammo :D

Aside from that, I agree with your assessment.

Kakapo42
04-10-2012, 01:37
What bugs me is that the Vendetta has so many lascannons without losing carrying ability, while the Razorback gives up space for half a squad to mount just one linked gun.

That makes sense, for the same reason Predators and Hammerheads cannot carry any troops at all. Basically, the Razorback's heavy weapons are in a turret, and the lessened transport capacity is to make room for all the extra servos and actuators that control and move the turret. The Vendetta's lascannons all either simply replace existing weaponry or are on external pylons, so don't take up any extra space.

As to the subject of heavy weapons using the same stats, I'm fine with it. The 40k rules are often quite abstract, and it's less details to keep track of.


Macro cannons are mahoosive duder, if I remember right, they're more a Titan/super-heavy weapon and would never fit on a Predator.

Oh, they're much much MUCH bigger than that. Macro cannons are the standard armament of Imperial cruisers.

prowla
04-10-2012, 02:30
Not really. Think of say a Browning 50 cal. Same when it is mounted on an Abrams, on a man portible tripod, or as a door gun in a helicopter. True, it is not a heavy weapon, but the point is that a single weapon design can be used in multiple mounts and operate the same way. Some of the more subtle changes that could differentiate mountings are things that are not reflect in game mechanics.

Yep, it's a bit hard to represent all these things on a tabletop game, but the true benefits of vehicle mounting are in mobility, stability and ability to carry more ammo + support systems - not in the possibility to increase the caliber. Bigger is not always better - it's always about cost effectiveness.

In real life, you could equip the whole army with .50 Barrett sniper rifles or 40mm grenade launchers, but it would end up costing a lot and not be as practical as the standard M16 assault rifle. You could also replace the 5.45 NATO round with the more powerful 7.62 AK round, but in real life almost all armies have stopped using the 7.62 and gone to 5.45 - even all the Eastern Block ones where it used to come standard! Finland is one of the few countries to use the 7.62 nowadays, and that's just because there's so many high quality 7.62 Sako RK62 rifles in the storage houses.

Lascannons and such are man-portable heavy weapons anyway, SM tanks come equipped with somewhat lighter stuff - they are ment mostly for fast assault duties. Guard tanks are the ones with "proper" guns on them.

When thinking about designing real life army equipment, it doesn't make much sense to do million different calibers and designs. If it's a good piece of equipment, it's better to mass produce the stuff and do only minor modifications. Makes a lot of things easier if everything uses the same parts and ammo. In 40k, you could also say that there's the STCs and Mechanicum to consider - they control the manufacturing and you get what you get.

A.T.
04-10-2012, 09:57
Oh, they're much much MUCH bigger than that. Macro cannons are the standard armament of Imperial cruisers.I think it's just a generic designation - cruiser macro batteries represent hundreds or thousands of smaller weapons including projectiles, missiles, lasers, and exotics.

The original macro cannon from titanicus was the weapon which would eventually become the quake cannon.


I'll repeat what has been said though - 40k uses very broad power and stat brackets. An autocannon of any size S7 because it's notably more powerful than the bracket of weapons required to instantly splatter/vaporise humans but not powerful enough to instantly splatter/vaporise 10' tall alien bugs or enhanced superhuman space marines.

Likewise all autocannons are AP4 as they lack the penetrative power and force to negate the armour and servo-assisted nature of power armour but hit hard enough that even the lighter autocannons will pulverise or snap limbs through carapace and similar regardless of successful penetration.

bad dice
04-10-2012, 11:46
If I were to pick a 'isn't it wierd ' with heavy weapons it would be that when firing Frag missiles, a SM or Tau (with all the advanced targeting systems they'd have available) are no more accurate than an ork with a rokkit-onna-stick. In fact, nothing - no tank, no dedicated missile launching system, is any more accurate than an ork. But, swap it out for a Krak missile and suddenly there's a world of difference in targeting ability.


One orks cant fire frag missiles
and
two thats where scattering 2d/6 minus bs comes in.

TheBearminator
04-10-2012, 11:50
A SM normally has a 66.77% chance to hit, an ork has 33.33%. (SM Twice as good)

If they roll scatter dice, they each have a 33.33% chance to hit. No difference for an ork. In fact, that they have a chance to hit even if they miss by rolling a 2 (2.77% chance), means they are fractionally better than if they were not using the scatter dice. An SM who misses has a 16.65% chance of hitting even if they miss. Much better than an ork, yes, but that is still LESS likely to hit over all than had they fired a Krak missile by a wide margin.

How you work out the probability that if A (66% chance) fails, then it may happen anyway (16%) is beyond me. But I'd put money on the fact it's less than 66%.

But with blasts that scatters, it's more complex than a matter of "hit" or "miss". Yes, marines have a much better chance of neglecting scattering rolls. While an ork player would need to roll snake eyes (one chance in thirtysix) the marine player would be just as happy with all rolls that equal four or lower (six successful outcomes in thirtysix, or 1 chance in 6.) So far so well.

But another thing that you need to take into account is all the rolls that end up scattering, but stays on target. In my experience, that's often the ones that don't scatter more than two inches (depending on blast size and the size of the unit you're fireing at). For an ork player that would mean rolling three or four. And as I just said, the chance of rolling four or less is one in six. Pretty slim chances. For a marine player though, there are numerous chances of ending up six or lower. If I'm not mistaken, that's fifteen in thirtysix!

The_Klobb_Maniac
04-10-2012, 15:45
If I were to pick a 'isn't it wierd ' with heavy weapons it would be that when firing Frag missiles, a SM or Tau (with all the advanced targeting systems they'd have available) are no more accurate than an ork with a rokkit-onna-stick. In fact, nothing - no tank, no dedicated missile launching system, is any more accurate than an ork. But, swap it out for a Krak missile and suddenly there's a world of difference in targeting ability.
Not true? Look at the variance of rolling 2d6 and how often you get hits due to subtracting BS. Scattering and still hitting stuff also doesn't count as "missing". Getting perfect shots happens *too often* as it is.

I also want to note that a valk's lascannons (and LCs in general) are not similar to modern day tank cannons *at all.* If we could power that many cannons on a helo efficiently you can bet we'd have it right now.

AlphariusOmegon20
04-10-2012, 18:15
That works, but I picked the lascannon because it's a big, meaty armor penetrator.
So it's like an Apache attack helicopter and a battle tank having the same armament, except the Apache has 3 cannons.


I hate to tell you, but early at one time during the Apache's development, it DID have the same gun as the M2 Bradley (the M242 Bushmaster). It was dropped when they realized they wanted a bit more "ummph" in the gun, and thus instead went with the M230 30mm you see on it today.


Oh i don't know, the weapon feels pretty heavy to lug around, not including spare barrels and ammo :D

Aside from that, I agree with your assessment.

Coming in at roughly 85lbs. just for the gun alone, oh yeah, it's heavy.



Yep, it's a bit hard to represent all these things on a tabletop game, but the true benefits of vehicle mounting are in mobility, stability and ability to carry more ammo + support systems - not in the possibility to increase the caliber. Bigger is not always better - it's always about cost effectiveness.

In real life, you could equip the whole army with .50 Barrett sniper rifles or 40mm grenade launchers, but it would end up costing a lot and not be as practical as the standard M16 assault rifle. You could also replace the 5.45 NATO round with the more powerful 7.62 AK round, but in real life almost all armies have stopped using the 7.62 and gone to 5.45 - even all the Eastern Block ones where it used to come standard! Finland is one of the few countries to use the 7.62 nowadays, and that's just because there's so many high quality 7.62 Sako RK62 rifles in the storage houses.

True, but even Finland has tried several times to go to the 5.56mm round, with the extended testing of M76's and the M82 Bullpup's chambered for that round. The problem is ballistics in cold weather. The 7.62 Chicomm is simply a more stable round in colder weather like Finland has than the 5.56mm is, unless you tighten the twist rate down to 1 in 7, which makes it wholly unusable in any other climate. By tightening the twist rate, you begin to lose penetration around 1 in 9, a key advantage of the 5.56mm round, that you want to keep in the first place.

It's Finland's weather and how it affects ballistics that has caused the necessity to keep the 7.62 Chicomm, not desire just to be different to keep the Chicomm round.

Maidel
04-10-2012, 18:42
I hate to tell you, but early at one time during the Apache's development, it DID have the same gun as the M2 Bradley (the M242 Bushmaster). It was dropped when they realized they wanted a bit more "ummph" in the gun, and thus instead went with the M230 30mm you see on it today.


Calling a bradley a battle tank is stretching things beyond breaking point...

AlphariusOmegon20
04-10-2012, 19:26
Calling a bradley a battle tank is stretching things beyond breaking point...

One could argue the Predator isn't a true tank. It's more along the lines of an up armored IFV, with no carrying capacity.

nedius
04-10-2012, 22:20
Not true? Look at the variance of rolling 2d6 and how often you get hits due to subtracting BS. Scattering and still hitting stuff also doesn't count as "missing". Getting perfect shots happens *too often* as it is.

I also want to note that a valk's lascannons (and LCs in general) are not similar to modern day tank cannons *at all.* If we could power that many cannons on a helo efficiently you can bet we'd have it right now.

Can you please check my follow up post? The statsitcal likelyhood of an ork successfully hitting after a miss actually maies his chance to hit better over all based on BS, where as for any thing with a bs of 4 has only a 16% chance of still hittong after a miss. add that to the 33% chance of a hit in the first place , and it is still significantly less than the 66% chance if based on bs alone.

Maidel
04-10-2012, 22:45
One could argue the Predator isn't a true tank. It's more along the lines of an up armored IFV, with no carrying capacity.

Its certainly not a bradley - thats a razorback.

And GW would beg to differ with you.

The first sentance of the current marine codex - entry for the predator:

The predator is the main battle tank of the Space marines.

igwarlord
05-10-2012, 00:35
The first sentance of the current marine codex - entry for the predator:

The predator is the main battle tank of the Space marines.

And if I call my crap a rose don't mean it will suddenly smell nice

the predator is much closer to a German SdKfz 234 than anything else except it has treads over wheels.

DyeNasty
05-10-2012, 00:47
i would like to know say about the Krak v.s. Frag missile issue.... we shouldnt be fretting about the fact one has variations and the other is the same all the way across..... why are the two different from each other like that? you would assume that because they are fired from the same launcher they should have the same range, S, and AP as each other,

For a real life example if you change the explosives in a grenade from thermite and black powder(frag) to white phosphorous(incendyary) it will weigh the same, can still be thrown the same distance, through the same windows the only difference is what the effects are when it goes boom.

so why wouldnt it be the same in 40k

Chem-Dog
05-10-2012, 02:41
As MajorWes says, size differences could be due to the tank versions having stuff built in that an infantrymen could see to himself, such as extra-resilient barrels, cooling systems, etc. Also differences between the IG and Marine ones could be due to Marines having better kit.

It could also be the flip of this. Weapon and weapon system design is stilted and backwards in 40K, there's little drive to no refine and improve. A Landraider Godhammer Lascannon might actually be inferior to the one a Devestator Marine carries but remain in service because the only STC source for Landraiders specifies that precise model, it could be that the Godhammer pattern is used in tanks because it's not man (astartes) portable, the lighter, more compact versions reserved for the Infantry who can't lug a gun with it's hulking great generators around.


What bugs me is that the Vendetta has so many lascannons without losing carrying ability, while the Razorback gives up space for half a squad to mount just one linked gun.


That makes sense, for the same reason Predators and Hammerheads cannot carry any troops at all. Basically, the Razorback's heavy weapons are in a turret, and the lessened transport capacity is to make room for all the extra servos and actuators that control and move the turret. The Vendetta's lascannons all either simply replace existing weaponry or are on external pylons, so don't take up any extra space.


Consider this.
A Landraider can carry ten Astartes, take out it's Lascannons and associated ephemera and it's transport capacity increases by 50% (the numbers vary according to which edition of which Codex you read, but it's a good baseline) even when replacing the LC's with other weapon systems. This is specifically stated. Lascannon Generators/capacitors* are bulky enough that (assuming one per sponson) they occupy the space taken up by 2.5 Astartes in armour.
Apply that basic number to a Vendetta with it's three TL LC's and you have to lose 7.5 guardsmen to make the gunship viable. Even if you could jam the Guardsmen into the 4.5 capacity slots left the additional weight on an aircraft is far more crucial than on a land-bound vehicle, affecting the vehicle's operational range for more acutely. All of the other Valkyrie/vendetta armaments (bar the multilaser) are dropped or launched and thus can be heavy as they (or at least a majority of their weight) only be carried half of the distance.

*I say Capacitors as it strikes me as odd that a Landraider with a plasma reactor engine would need to actually have separate generators for it's energy weapons, you would just need to syphon off enough energy from the reactor when you needed to take a shot, a capacitor would allow you to "hold" a shot/salvo's worth so you could do it on the trot.

OgreBattle
05-10-2012, 06:39
Say with the predator autocannon problem, wouldn't s8 solve that issue? "Predator has a bigger autocannon, it is s8"


Similar to how the Eldar has a s8 laser that has further range and fires faster than the infantry brigtlance (it loses lance though)
(then the hornet just goes 'lol we put 2 on a flying turret)

Maidel
05-10-2012, 08:05
And if I call my crap a rose don't mean it will suddenly smell nice

the predator is much closer to a German SdKfz 234 than anything else except it has treads over wheels.

If you are in charge of scatological science then that would be up to you.

This is gws game, it's their rules and their back ground

TheBearminator
05-10-2012, 09:47
There are all kinds of paradoxes in the weapons section of the game. Take for example the executioner plasma cannon. In all essential it's a heavy 3 plasma cannon that for some reason doesn't get hot? Could have been written as unique special rules;"triple the excitement", "superior cooling". My unofficial leman russ actually looks like the engineer may have thought about the cooling issue, it seems to have some kind of ventilation.

My favorite otherwise is one an old description of the assault cannon in my third edition (?) space marine codex. In short it said that the assault cannon benefits from s6 and the rending universal special rule, because it has higher calibre than its sibling, the heavy bolter. Excuse me? Look at the models for God's sake. When I take a glance at my land raiders, it looks like you could easily fit one of the barrels of the assault cannon inside the barrel of the heavy bolter. :)

OgreBattle
05-10-2012, 15:13
There are all kinds of paradoxes in the weapons section of the game. Take for example the executioner plasma cannon. In all essential it's a heavy 3 plasma cannon that for some reason doesn't get hot? Could have been written as unique special rules;"triple the excitement", "superior cooling". My unofficial leman russ actually looks like the engineer may have thought about the cooling issue, it seems to have some kind of ventilation.

Sadly only the Orks follow that line of organized thought (shootier, more dakka)



My favorite otherwise is one an old description of the assault cannon in my third edition (?) space marine codex. In short it said that the assault cannon benefits from s6 and the rending universal special rule, because it has higher calibre than its sibling, the heavy bolter. Excuse me? Look at the models for God's sake. When I take a glance at my land raiders, it looks like you could easily fit one of the barrels of the assault cannon inside the barrel of the heavy bolter. :)

I thought the 3rd edition assault cannon was heavy3 and didn't have rending?

TheBearminator
05-10-2012, 15:26
I thought the 3rd edition assault cannon was heavy3 and didn't have rending?

That might be. I did a (?) cause I didn't know what codex it was. Don't play marines anymore. :)

Poseidal
05-10-2012, 23:40
Rending didn't exist then, and was introduced for Genestealers in one edition. It had 3 shots because it exploded when you rolled 3 misses with all shots.

AlphariusOmegon20
06-10-2012, 22:22
Rending didn't exist then, and was introduced for Genestealers in one edition. It had 3 shots because it exploded when you rolled 3 misses with all shots.

If you're talking about the 2nd ed AC, it wasn't 3 misses, it was 3 jams on the special jam dice they gave you in the basic box set. And unless the Genestealer cult had it in RT, they never had it, because they didn't have access to it in 2nd ed.

I've got the 2nd ed. codex sitting right next to me, and it's not listed.

Poseidal
06-10-2012, 22:47
3rd edition had the explosion on your to-hit dice, because there was no sustained fire. Genestealers got it in 3rd or 4th edition, not before the 3rd edition incarnation of the Assault Cannon.

MajorWesJanson
07-10-2012, 00:41
Apply that basic number to a Vendetta with it's three TL LC's and you have to lose 7.5 guardsmen to make the gunship viable. Even if you could jam the Guardsmen into the 4.5 capacity slots left the additional weight on an aircraft is far more crucial than on a land-bound vehicle, affecting the vehicle's operational range for more acutely. All of the other Valkyrie/vendetta armaments (bar the multilaser) are dropped or launched and thus can be heavy as they (or at least a majority of their weight) only be carried half of the distance.


If you look at the FW model for the Vendetta, the Wing mounted Las cannons have what appear to be small power packs on the back of the mount, much like the ones attached by cable to the IG man portible las cannons. While Land Raiders, Predators, and Razorbacks are in the field for longer and ths need large generators/capacitors to power their guns, a Vendetta could get by with a small power pack capable of say 10-15 shots, as they are limited in endurance anyways and they could recharge the guns back at base when they refuel. Same goes for the single linked Lascannons that FW makes to mount on underwing pylons.

OgreBattle
07-10-2012, 04:32
That's partially why I started this thread, the idea that you can fit a tank turret's weapon on the wing of a fast gunship feels very goofy.

AlphariusOmegon20
07-10-2012, 06:30
That's partially why I started this thread, the idea that you can fit a tank turret's weapon on the wing of a fast gunship feels very goofy.

It's not so weird of an idea. Take a look at the M61 Vulcan. It has been used on everything from light armored vehicles (the M163 VADS) to towed AA mounts ( the M167 VADS), to Ships (the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS on various ship types)to various aircraft (the F4 Phantom and the F22 Raptor, just to name 2).

Again, it's not that strange of an idea.

lanrak
07-10-2012, 13:08
Hi all.
Important things to remember about 40k.
Its JUST a game.
It is all about the rule of cool.
Real world comparisions do NOT apply.

AlphariusOmegon20
07-10-2012, 18:20
Real world comparisions do NOT apply.

Well that's great and all, but unfortunately, saying "real world comparisons do not apply" does not answer the OP's question, especially when you consider that it can be easily answered by using a real world comparison where a similar idea was used.

I think you forget that when Warhammer 40K was created, the designers DID use a few real world examples as the basis for some of their creations. Did you think the Predator is a strange idea that came off the top of someone's head? No, the basis of the idea came from the real world example of an FV101 Scorpion Light Tank. The Rhino used the FV432 as an idea jumpstart and even today, IIRC, GW has one painted up as an Ultramarines Rhino in front of one of their facilities. The Leman Russ pulls design ideas from the M3 Grant, as well as ideas from the WW1 Mark I Series of tanks.

To say that "Real world comparisons do not apply" doesn't hold water when look at WHAT was used as inspiration for some of the things in 40K that came into the game.

Poseidal
07-10-2012, 18:35
Hi all.
Important things to remember about 40k.
Its JUST a game.
It is all about the rule of cool.
Real world comparisions do NOT apply.
Rule of Cool isn't when it breaks suspension of disbelief. Reality is stranger than fiction, in that in fiction it has to be consistent with the setting.