Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Just for fun. :)

Bolt pistol

Damage 4d pi+ (2) followed-up by 2d burn Acc 2 Range 1,900 [i]Weight[i] 1/0.4 RoF 10 Shots 18+1 (3) ST 9 Bulk -2 Rcl 1 Cost 3,500 LC 2

Boltgun

Damage 6d pi+ (2) followed-up by 3d burn Acc 3 Range 3,000 Weight 12/1.5 RoF 10 Shots 20+1 (3) ST 10 Bulk -3 Rcl 1 Cost 20,000 LC 2

Note: Bolt weapons are not Gyroc weapons - not as Gyrocs are portrait in 4E, however. Bolt weapons fire armor-piercing micromissiles that explode a fraction of second after hitting the target, so armor does not protect against the explosive effect. Bolt weapons are strictly military and hard to craft, from this the low LC and the high cost.

Laser weapons

See B280.

Plasma weapons

Consider as blasters (B 280), with the following modifications: add +3d to damage, and give a malfunction number of 14.

Chain weapons

Such weapons add +1d cutting damage.

Power weapons

Power weapons add +1d burning damage and have an armor divisor of 5.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Cool, a GURPS WH40K tabletop is probably in my future.

I agree with your theory of the bolt gun, but :*)....

1. pistols can have a higher rate of fire
2. boltguns will auto-pierce some, but not all armor. Generally powered armor will have a chance to repel a bolter missile.
3. 'eavy Bolters will be more powerful, but #2 still applies.

4. GURPS basic is missing the area effects of weapons, although I haven't spent much time yet looking at the combat rules to be sure. A plasma should have a linear and burst area effect.

5. and darn GURPS basic 4e doesn't have any official Ultratech heavy weapon conversions.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I was just wondering what "rules" you guys use to convert from.
There is much difference in converting from Inquisitor, Necromunda or Warhammer 40k 3e.

If you use Inquisitor there are many more details to use ^^ including the difference between using a straight mag or sicle mag for your boltgun (15 rounds for straight, 20 for sickle.)
I also includes different types of ammo rounds, including: Kraken penetrating (more pen), Metal storm frag (explodes before inpact showering the target with sharpnels), Inferno (less dam, but burn.), Hellfire (less dam but acid, follow up), Stalker silencer (less dam but no flash or sound).

...and much, much more. I never liked the Inquisitor system, but I like some of the details. And I have to find it amusing that a lasgun only does 2d6 dam while an autogun does 2d6+2. Bloody flashlights!

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

WH40K last edition, because it's the only one I know. :P

Well, I could give them RoF 10, actually.

Well, we could simply give power armors an high enough DR to resist.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I always considered power weapons to be more of a "force field" weapon - I'd use armour divisor 10, and make the +1d general damage rather than fire.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

"General" damage? What's this? Has it a wounding modifier? Seriously: what the hell "general" damage is?

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Damage with no wounding modifier then - sorry if I was being ambiguous.

If you want to stick with the rules definitions I mean damage like crushing damage, with no multipliers or anything.

Cutting damage might be more appropriate for the force weapon, on second thoughts.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

But "general" damage has no sense, IMHO. Does the force field around the weapon destroy by burning and melting things? It does burning damage. Does it destroy by crushing things? It does crushing damage. Does it destroy vital energy? It does toxic damage. And so on.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

maybe is't just unbreakable but don't burn things around - like normal matter? then it may be crushing or cutting, depending on it's shape.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I'm curious, what sort of 40K universe campaign would you guys run if you did something like that? Only thing that really comes to mind for me is Inquisitor and maybe Necromunda exploration/dungeon crawl type stuff. What else do you guys imagine?
M

Oh, maybe Rogue Trader, delving back into the old days.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Cool.

In the WH40k novels, chain weapon can chew through armor that standard melee weapons would have no effect on. On the other hand, they're usually weilded by people in power armor. I would give them more damage, an armor divisor, and the DR-reducing effects of Corrosion damage.

Again, I would add more damage.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Power Weapons, according to the varying fluff you get from GW staff writers, are actually supposed to be empowered, monomolecularly-edged weapons. They either have a force field which is so sharp that armour is penetrated or they vibrade a monomolecular edge with a high frequency liquifying the armour of the opponent. Some power weapons are actually psychically driven, like many chaos daemon weapons.

In essense, the weapon ignores armour, it doesn't add to damage. So it wouldn't be a DR divisor, but I'd say it ignores DR entirely. Of course, you'd have to make those types of weapons extremely rare.

A power fist would add probably 2d damage as well as ignore armour.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Oh yeah. Chain weapons of whatever type are said to do that in the books, but if you're doing what it says in the books then one Farseer would annihilate an entire platoon of Guardsmen by his lonesome.

Still, I would recommend a DR divisor of some value as well as add an extra bit of damage. Perhaps you could call it a new type of damage. Puree or something. x4 damage that gets through armour :)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I think I would use [cr ex] as a follow up on the ammunition instead of [burn]. Note since it is a delayed explosion it is safe to assume that the explosion is internal for very nasty effects if the first damage penetrates and deals damage. Ohh and if it is an explosive I would reduce the damage since 3d would affect a radius of 6 yards (sounds a bit hefty to me), maybe down to 1d because since it is internal damage you would deal 1dx3 if it penetrated armor. See p. 415 in GURPS Basic Campaigns 4th Ed.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

A space-based, including boarding board assaults could work as Space Marines vs. Hive Fleet. There was a GW board game on that previously. Still waiting on GURPS Space 4e, though.

And of course Rogue Trader as a kind of warped Traveller.

A Horus Heresy, Chaos power-munchkin campaign would probably be fun, heroic, and dark. Similarly, an Ork inter-tribal war for power-munchkiness.

For horror/mystery, a Genestealer Cult led by a Patriach (a kind of Tyranid pre-invasion) installing itself on a human world would be good. And the Genestealer Cult corrupted by Chaos would be a double twist.


Overall, I agree, not much character development in the life of a Genestealer, or a peon Space Marine.



(all Capitalized words trademarks of Games Workshop www.games-workshop.com) :*)

Really, I'd probably just come up with original, GW-'inspired' concepts, to make a GURPS campaign divest of all GW-copyrights and trademarks. It'd be best to make a completely new game, with just enough consistency with the GW-universe in order to use the GW miniatures as is.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

And if you're adapting 40k to an RPG system, that's the source material you should be using. If you base it on the game mechanics, you'll find yourself trying to concoct a way for a lowly Gretchin to survive a direct hit from an Earthshaker shell or a Volcano Cannon one sixth of the time, and for large numbers of sticks and knives to be a match for Terminator armour. They tone things down for reasons of game balance (and especially the Space Marines, since depicting them at their "proper" power level would require either one-squad armies from the Space Marines, or absolutely colossal armies from everybody else), but the novels aren't bound by such artificial restrictions.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Oh, and there's plenty of scope for character development in 40k, as long as you're willing to make time for it between Tyranid attacks, Ork invasions, Chaos uprising and Emperor knows what else. While, say, an Ork or a Genestealer won't have much of an individual personality, most of the kinds of characters you'd want to play as most certainly would.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Mmm, how about giving chain weapons Armor Divisor 2 and +1d cutting damage, and Armor Divisor 5 and +2d burning damage to power weapons?
However, my champaign idea was something like "human against the universe" or something like it. ;)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Ermmm... you do realize that balance is what you have to have in any game system, right? What I was pointing out is that the novels hyperbolize the abilities of the various factions to support the story. In game building you don't get that kind of artistic license.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

When building an RPG, you don't have to set, for instance, Space Marine stats low enough that they can be used in significant numbers without slaughtering the enemy. If the PCs are playing them, you instead give them huge challenges to match their power levels; if they're not, you use them in very small quantities, or as a cue to run like hell and not look back. Doing otherwise would be rather like putting Cthulhu in 100-point campaign and then deciding that he's too powerful for the PCs to deal with, so his powers need to be cut down to their level. It defeats the whole point; if he's too powerful for them, then either leave him out, make the PCs more powerful, or leave him in and expect the PCs to run for it the moment they realise what's happening.

EDIT: And I should also point out that there are roughly one million space marines to defend an Imperium of roughly one million worlds, and they're still able to play a significant role (not the only one, by any means, but the fact that they matter at all with such small numbers is impressive enough). Even if you ignore the novels and short stories depicting their capabilities, that still indicates that they're very, very good.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Totally agree with this. One of the best things about Inquisitor is that GW decided not to cut down the SM abilities in the name of balance. According to 40k canon you'd rather crawl up a hog's a$$ for a hot ham sandwich than mess with just one of those guys - so they should be statted that way.

They're only beardy if you play them that way. :)
M

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I resurrect this thread for a question: what skill should weapons such as heavy bolters, assault cannons, heavy cannons etc. use? Gunner (Machine Gun) or Guns (LMG)? Remember that shuch weapons can be braced by exceptionally strong people (Space Marines).

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

You can separate weapons like that. I'd probably use the classifications Bolt, Beam, Missile, and Plasma. If you include other races you'll have to use their own gunnery skills. For instance, Tau rail guns and Eldar Plasma Beams (starcannons).

Marines are pretty strong on their own and the basic power armour doesn't really lend itself to carry the weapon or enhance the S of the wearer a lot. I could go into the stat qualifications of the incremental change for each stat level (ie- S4 is X times bigger than S3), but I won't bog it down unless someone asks about it.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Hmm, Not sure about this. but couldn't you use both? the Guns (LMG) for those strong enough and Gunner (machine guns) for those, normal people, who need it to be mounted, on tripods or tanks, in order to use it.

Actually I think I would set Heavy stubbers and Heavy bolters as LMG's, even for normal humans. ...just with sucha high ST requirement that you would need to be really strong, or a marine to use it without a bipod.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Mmm, it seems that I must cast the most powerful spell in the world: KROMM SUMMONING!!!!!

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I believe that works better by PM.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

On the subject of chain-swords:

I just can't see how they would work very well, particularly when they encounter any armour. Even mail would give one trouble as the links foul up the sword's chain, and I can't imagine one doing anything other than scratching sheet-steel. I mean, we all know what happens when a modern chainsaw encounters, say, a nail in a board, right? I think chain-swords belong in the realm of lightsabers...

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Meatmess fouls up chainsaws pretty badly, so they'd lose effectiveness after a while.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

In the particular game-universe, they belong in the realm of the "far future".

They are presumably edged with mono-molecular blades, or simply very efficient, undiscovered alloys. In my ed. of the game, chain-swords are listed in the same category as normal swords and other medieval weapons, simply no special bonuses. In the tabletop game they are simply cool things to hang on miniatures to represent the each of the mini's basic close combat attack value; The actual strength of the attack is hard-coded into the mini's stat, rather then indexed to the weapon. In other words...chainswords are just cheeze.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

That's what blood grooves are for. Seriously, these aren't TL7-8 chainsaws. They're chainsaws from the 41st millenium.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

THe problem is, that either they are VERY sharp and rotates VERY fast and then they are just a different type of Vibro blade, effecient vs armour and not expecially effecient agaisnt flesh. OR, they are not as fast, but might still be sharp and then are not that effecient agasint armour but very effecient against flesh.
The problem here is mostly, IMO that I would want the chainsword to be soemthing different than powerweapons but still worth using against high DR.

This is purely for "game balance" and "coolness", and has really no hold in reality: I would give them a swing+2d (2) And then let penetrating damage be x2-chain-cut instead of x1,5-cut.
And this is in addition to any other "stats" the weapon would normaly have. A sort of Weapon template. So a Chain greataxe would have Swing+2d+3 (2) chain-cut.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Or, they have different settings, allowing the user to vary the speed based upon what kind of target he's attacking.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Heh, I was actually considering the different speed thing. And might allow it in another setting. But I don't really think it's fitting for WH40k.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

You're the expert. I know next to nothing about Warhammer 40K. I was just offering a possible interpretation based on your comment.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I don't see why it would be particularly inappopriate to 40k. Mind you, I'd expect that as with everything else in that setting, there'd be a lot of variation; high-quality chainswords for Space Marine use would probably have all kinds of handy features like variable speeds, self-cleaning mechanisms, etc, while a low-end one built in someone's garage would be basically a crude chainsaw with a handle. Tech levels in 40k vary wildly depending on who and where you're talking about.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I remember some customised Ork vehicles having some great low-tech numbers strapped to them, as 'grabbas' or whatever they're calling them these days.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

One major issue when it comes to stating the guns, is how effective armour will be in the setting.

Power armour should bounce most mallarms; a DR of 30-40 would be about right.
Eldar guardians could wear something similar to the CID; DR 12, with DR 30 on the torso and head. The Scorpions would have a overall DR of 40, being as well armoured as Space Marines.

Terminators would have armour values pushing 60, making them imune to all but heavy weapons. (They are walking tanks, after all)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Chainswords are really just fluff in 40k, if you want to look at what someone else posted here earlier. However, in a GURPS game I'd probably give them some measure of armour divisor and keep the regular swing damage of a broadsword.

Power weapons would ignore armour entirely.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

When looking at armour you'd have to also look at the weapons and their AP function.

For instance, bolters have a S 5/AP 4. Starcannons have a S 6/AP 2. Each has a similar strength value, but the AP is wildly different with a different effect in the combat of the game.

Then, of course, you'd have to look at Invulnerable saves and make a call on those as well. Technically speaking, everyone in GURPS has an invulnerable save in the form of a Dodge. What would you do with the invulnerable saves that those wearing Terminator armour get, but not those wearing flak jackets?

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Uhm, did YOU read what people posted and what I said in the entire post?
It's in MY opinion that a chainsword should be worth using. And to be that it would need a a decent DR-reduction. It might be that some people think it should not be worth using, but as I already stated in that post I don't care about realisme. I only care about how a game would be fun to play. And for me that would mean that a chainsword should be worth using against a marine.

You can't really take something as simple as WH40k stats an translate them to GURPS. The only thing you can really use it for is to say "who use it, and against what"
So if you use heavy bolters agaisnt orcs but not marines it suggest that it's not worth using against marines, properly because it dosn't do enough damage (or have a high enough DR reduction).

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Chuck the invulnerable saves out the window, and up the regular DR?
Or give them Force field DR (In case of Terminators)
or Enhanced Dodge (In case of precog style protection, Farseer style)

GURPS is a far more flexible and realistic system than WH40K.
It has height for a LOT more variables, a whole different damage and armour scale, and does not have to bother with such trivialities as game balance.
After all, the GM sees to it that the players dont face things they can't handle.
Terminators bringing you down? Give the PCs LAW-style disposable rocket launchers.
Tyranids swarming your positions? Seems air suport just arrived.
Or artillery was reinvented.
Orks approaching? No sweat, they have Guns(LA) 6, and are to stupid to take cover when the heavy stubber (the pre-empire one that has "M2HB, Made by General Motors, Spark Plug Division" written on the side, and does 12d++ damage) opens up.
Chaos Space Marines on the lawn? Time to dig out the plasma grenades and AP ammo...

The posibilites are endless...

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Yes I did... which leads into this:

You can make your chainswords godly if you like, as well as making all sorts of whacky rules for the all the weapons. If you do that though, you'll wind up playing a game of Sci-fi GURPS with the Warhammer 40k name stapled to it and not much else.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

If I'm not mistaken their Inv save is classified as a force field. In GURPS it would probably be classified as a DR that is always fully applied no matter the weapon affecting it.

Farseers don't have an enhanced dodge. Their rune armour is saturated with psychic power which acts like a force field. Basically it's just fabric with slats of wraithbone (in the shape of runes) embroidered into it. Theirs would be a similar effect to the terminator force fields though, with different source of power.

It'd be interesting to make a farseer in GURPS. Psi rules and precog would be high on the list.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

How about having it halve or third DR divisors, or something?
You can't have a non-AP bullet from an autocannon do exactly the same thing as a HEAT Krak missile (divisor of 4-6).

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

For a straight table-top conversion, I'd still go with the concept that the 3rd ed. is pushing that pistol=chainsword=medieval weapon. The fluff background balances it all by giving power-armored marines the chainsword, while the hulking brutes get the medieval weapons, and the people in between get sci-fi pistols. The net effectivess balances out in the tabletop game, since it's a matter of who regularly uses the weapons. Also, the weapon itself doesn't affect the armor save, only the armor-type.


So the ratio of effect of chainsword to sword is actually (including attack value)
chainsword*marine = sword*ork = 4/3 rds * guardsmen*Laspistol

And someone in standard power armor (marine) isn't going to get wounded more than 33% of the time. An average ork will get wounded somewhere between 50% to 85% of the time. An average guardsmen will get wounded about 66% of the time.

From that we'd have to hash out a conversion to GURPS mechanics to get the nitty detail.



Of course the new ed. does have a weapons book that might have a new relationship set up.

And maybe the old Necromunda book, which does a better job of focusing on the 40k weapons, would be a better start for a detailed conversion (There is a GURPS Necromunda already, ain't there?).

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

The Battle Chainsaw...

I'd make a new damage type called Ripping, It would have an armor penalty somewhere around 25-50% but when it DOES go through it does Triple damage. Also making a very messy wound that couldn't be healed without the support of immediate surgery or magic healing.


ST14 +1d Ripping = 3d damage. Someone has 10 armor, you do X damage times .75 (round up) you roll 18 you do 13 damage to him, 3 gets through and messes him up for 9 damage.

If you need more damage for a higher level campaign add on more dice accordingly.

That way, the attacker and the defender always meet a do-or-die situation. Either He breaks through and obliterates me in one swing or I kill him before then.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Maybe just dramatically increase the chances of a major wound.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Chainswords are mainly a "coolness item". On a Rapid Fire ranged weapon battlefield, melee weapons are quite obsolete.
They are included in WH40K for flavour; In the real world, or GURPS for that matter, a sword wielding fighter would be gunned down before ever geting into close combat.
(Orks cant shoot worth, well, so they would NEED to get to close combat. But then, they dont care if they die.)
Its main advantage over a regular sword would be that it does not need to be swung, a handy feature in close combat.
Shooting is still preferable though.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Sorry if I answer only now. :P
About chainswords: well, remember that such weapons can cut throught advanced armor, one thing that you cannot do with 3d damage and no Armor Divisor. And concerning Orks who can do the same thing, it is not weird to suppose that they can give AD to their weapons trough their innate psi powers (their weapons works only because they want them working, actually!). And do not forget that even a Rank 0 Guard carries an adamantine knife.
About Invulnerability: could't it be represented with the Hardened enhanchement?

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

It's really a matter of them wanting their technology to work.
It's just that the idea of it failing doesn't make sense to them.

A normal chainsaw doesn't specialise in quick kills from torso shots, but extremely sharp, extremely strong blades spinning at extreme speed would be cause for concern for anyone.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Actually if you want to see a fluff movie of a chainsword in action, download the Dawn of War demo, and study the intro movie (quite good and graphic). The sergeant-type disembowels an ork with one. Not exactly slow, takes a few seconds--but easily makes it's point with the first second of grinding. Also it shows that the sawing isn't an "always on" trait.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

It does THAT by itself o.-

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Yeah, I almost picked up the Wargear book yesterday, but I wanted to get the Black Templar Codex... since I play that army.



That's not a bad idea. The Necromunda rules would probably be a better way of looking at the conversion since it's based on small squads and focuses more on ability of individual models rather than entire armies.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

The only problem is orks don't really have that great of an armour save. More or less it's indicitive of their own belief that they have a chance rather than wearing armour.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Question is if you want a "realistic" or "cinematic" campaign.
In a "realistic campaign" Chain swords would do 2d Cutting. at best.

Some units, like space marines, would be damned near invulnerable to small arms fire.
Which would be the only thing forcing someone into close combat anyhow.
Ranged weapons do more damage, and are safer.
Orks, sadly, are screwed. They can't shoot, and charging into HTH is suicide. But then again, they don't care. Excellent NPCs :)

In a cinematic campaign, hand to hand weapons would do a lot of damage, and skill levels would be accordingly high, allowing targeting of armour chinks and the like.

But if you want a "gritty" campaign, chain swords will only be used extensively in narrow pasages filled with 'nids. (Wich dont have armour, and will go down like a charm to a couple of seconds worth of 2d Cutting...)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Unless the chain-sword's sharp bits are made out of some sort of fictional, comic-book style super-alloy, I think 2d cutting with a (0.5) armour divisor sounds right. I just don't think the configuration lends itself to cutting armour. I'm sure they'd rip flesh up nicely, but that's got to be a heckuva motor in that little thing if it's going to handle anything with any sort of resistance...

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

That's a good question to ask yourself.

It could easily go either way, but I'd have a hard time playing realism with psi powers running around. Of course, if you were someone like an Imperial Guardsman, that'd be fairly easy to pull off.

Mind you, 40k seems to go out of it's way to disregard common sense in military actions. Most of the time in real life if you've got ammunition left you shoot the enemy, even when they're standing right there. In the 40k universe you have entire armies designed around the concept of fighting hand-to-hand.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

True. Come to think of it, marine vs. marine combat is usually power weapons, not chainswords.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall.../gnecguns.html


Here's the GURPS Necromunda project from GMASTER's site in the webring.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Nice ling GoodGamer, thanks.
But I'm not sure I agree with the way they have done the melee weapons. It seems they have just taken the weapons (chain and power) and then given them a d6-damage determined directly by it's S in Necromunda. and then given it a DR-reduction that seemed apropriate.
also because chain and power weapons doesn't give a bonus to S but gives a flat S, they have done the same and does not allow swing or thrust damage to change the dam of the weapons.

They have done the same with the ranged weapons btw.
It's a very easy conversion but I think it could be more varried, basing your entire damage system on 3-5 d6 is just not enough IMO.


It does makes sense compared to the necromunda system though. A S3 has 50% of giving a wound=knocking a man down. 3d6 have about 50% of giving 10 wounds = knocking a mand down.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I would look to Gurps:WWII for a rough guide to what kind of damage firearms can dish out. Wich is LOTS.
(Imperial Guard is practically WWII with Lasguns, anyhow...)

A WW2 heavy MG, comparable to a heavy stubber, does 12d++
A MG42 MMG does 7d, with a ROF of 20. A Shuriken cannon would be similar, with even higher ROF (maybe as high as 40+), but with less damage and range, and rcl 1
A 30mm short Autocannon does 5dx3(0.5)+2d
A Basilisk shell, (128mm howitzer) would do 6dx15 [10d frag]
A Lascannon would either have ROF 1, 6dx5(10), or ROF 8, Damage 6d(10), Rcl1 and the regular cumulative Laser damage rule.


A Tiger tank has a front DR of 400. Acording to Imperial Armour, the Leman russ has about 100mm of front armour, which is the same as the Tiger. The leeman has more slope, though, and would end up at 5-600 front DR.

Typical Eldar vehicles have thinner armour, but immense amounts of front slope. They would aslo be a bitch to hit, as the Falcon is capable of speeds up to 800km/h... And, unlike the tabletop version, the GURPS falcon would have effective targeting systems, and a competent crew... I think of them more as combat helicopters than tanks.
Tau would be much the same.
Ork Vehicles would have lousy DR, but be plentyfull.
Nids, as usual, are excellent target practice.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

One would think that technology improved a little between 40k and WWII. Heck, technology has improved a fair amount between now and WWII, and I don't see any Lasguns or Hovertanks.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

The Imperial guard still looks like a WWII army, and certainly operates like the Red Army.
Fluff wise, they are often LESS advanced than WWII armies; They have no laser designators for artillery, no disposable LAWs, no standard issue grenades, no under barrel Grenade launchers, no SMGs save the pistols, and so on.
Of course, all this is easily remedied, if you want to run a "realistic SF" campaign. Wich I would do, if I ran a WH40K campaing.

But still; For game purposes, there is no point in increasing damage levels notably above the WW II levels; A PC hit by a anti vehicle weapon will only be turned into finer ground beef jerky, and vehicles would have to be upgraded to withstand the higher damage levels.
If the Leeman Russ has DR 600 or DR 6000 mathers little; A LasCannon would still be made just powerfull enough to have a decent chance of knocking it out.

The main purpose of the example was to show that vehicle mouted/anti vehicle weapons are in an entirely different league than regular infantry weapons, and to give a reference to what kind of equipment a proper army would have.

In my opinion, heavily armoured troops, like space marines, should be outside the reach of regular infantry weapons. They would of course need to be made rare and far between.
Remember that a standard space marine chapter are no larger than a regular battalion, with about 1000 fighting marines.
Naturally, these forces would be spread out thin among the hordes of the imperial guard, or used en masse in concentrated attacks. They are more like tanks than infantry.
Killing ONE space marine would be a challenge for a Imperial guard squad, and probably involve cunning use of explosives, heavy support weapons or LAWs(if you bother to invent them.)
A Warp Spider would be a nightmare worthy of a horror movie...

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

When using Space Marines, fluff beats the actual rules hands down for coolness.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I really like Statens suggestions.
The imperial army is in some ways very low-tech.

But apart from the damage of lasguns and lasguns it's a bit harder to make the specialized weapons such as plasmagun and meltagun.


And I agree with Squeblish Nef?.
If you want to play in the warhammer world I think it would be fair to stretch realisme and "the rules" in order to get the feel of the world.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Generally I agree since each set will be a relative scale, and unless your game will mix together WW2 and 41st C., there's no reason in fine scale detail. Most things that one might take as 41st C. primitive might still be 1000's of years ahead of WW2 in material engineering at least (Ork 'eavy armor might actually be better than titanium alloy for instance).

If you do a Necromunda scale though (barbarian to space marine), you might want the detail. Generally WW2 to 2000 weaponry would fit under the classes of cheaper projectile weapons of Necromunda.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

The idea that just becasue it's the year 40.000 the lowest tech must stil lbe very high tech is very wrong. The whole principal of the 40k univers is that the world (the Earth and humanity) grew very advanced and populated the univers but then it all whent wrong and the world (expecially Earth but also most of humanity) whent back to a primal state. With tribes warring for dominance and so on, untill The Emperor stepped up took control, united the tribes of Earth and began discovering the old tech again. I don't have my 40k book with me, but I think it's some 10k years since this happened. That is a long time, but there has been no improvement of tech in all that time, only rediscovering of old techs and finding uses for them. The STC systems that most tanks are based on are originally farmland machines. They then put on some weapons to make them into engines of war.
Almost no people understand the technology, and the ones that do sees it as something holy that "though shall not tamper with".
To make things even more complicated many of the world re-conqured and made part of the Empire was at a state of mideavel techlevel, or below.

To sum up, the tech level is utterly screwed up. You can't just say that "they got acces to superalloy and therefore use it where it would be best" It is my impression that most of the empire, and that includes most of the imperial guard army are in fact at a Techlevel between WWI and WWII. They jsut have acces to some Extraordinary weapons, like lasguns and plasma weapons. This doesn't mean they are highly advanced, just that they know how to use them. It doesn't take people a long time to learn how to fire a rifle instead of a bow. (It's actually easier, as shown in gurps ;))

So to get back on track. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to fit logic. Even if you want to make it realistic you have to take in to considereation that the only persons allowed to do anything else than use tech, is the Techpriests of Mars. A commander or soldier just have to use what he got. If he picked up, say an eldar shuriken gun and toyed around with it and found a way to duplicate it he would most properly be executed as a heretic and the weapon destroyed or confiscated by the Techpriest.
And it's even worse with the brotherhoods of the space marines.

On that note if you pitched a modern army of equal size agasint the imperial guard the modern army would win. They are faster and more deadly. However when the marins jump in with jumpacks and start flailing aroudn with chainswords ans throws meltabombs at the tanks then the victory is back at 40k.

Uhm, not sure what this helped, but I'm very tired and need to sleep. Ehe, sorry about such a long post.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

They do have extremely variable TLs, with the feral stone-age planets on one hand, and Mars on the other.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

The main "problem" isn't that Imperial tech sucks, but why Eldar or Tau technology is scarcely better.
The reason, IRL, is of course tabletop game balance.
But should one "up" the eldar/tau accordingly in GURPS?
However, the guns are not the main "problem here.

The differences come to light in such fields as personal armour and accessories.
If a Eldar Guardian gets the same bonuses from equipment as Imperial Guard does, he would have a natural BS of 1... Since range finders, scopes, lowlight/thermal vison and just about every other addon in the book would be integrated in his TL10 combat suit. Wich would also offer A LOT more protection than the imperial guard's TL6 flack jackets.(both gives a 6+ save, as far as I remember...)
Tau and Eldar would also have a huge advantage in mobility. With APCs moving at near supersonic speed, a small eldar or Tau force can cover wast amounts of ground in a very short time.

Tau could be fun adversaries, though...
Incredibly advanced sights and armour, and 0,5 point in Guns(light auto). (Wich would explain why they cant hit anything when you are up close... They need to aim first...)

But, as NPCs, the appearance of Warp Spider Exarchs can be limited to what the PC's can handle. (Wich is none, lest the PCs be Space marines...)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Yea when we come all the other races I think it would be fair to give them what they deserve. But again, the Eldar is also an ancient racethat does not make new technology. They do not have to make sense either.
The only real High-technological and modern race is the tau. But it's my impression that they don't have the same drive for survival as humans, for instance, have.
They are a part of "the grater good" almost hive-mind-like. So they don't really explore the possibilities of the tech the way humans would.
Well these are just "excuses" to go around logic.

All in all I think the eldar, tau and marines should have the tech that you see fit and don't care what they should be able to do or not compared to the tabletop game.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

When you get away from the combat side, and deeper into the fluff, the answer is usually culture. The aliens may have deeper, more mysterious science and technology that due to their culture, haven't applied it to war.
It seems to be that the empire is powerful, but slightly stagnant and repressive, so only a select minority possesses the best technology, but is dedicated to maintaining it for the status quo sake. There isn't much of a free-market driving the economy and research but general (and somewhat lagging) war.

In the case of Eldar fluff, they're a partially destroyed race, so some of their technology is presumed lost, or not distributable in large numbers. The higher level Eldar are very powerful, but the goods aren't distributed to plain foot soldiers due to lack of availability.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Thanks. :*] I bow to your deep knowledge of the fluff. Is that 4th Ed.? Either way it makes a more plausible explanation than the basic moribund stuff in 3rd Ed.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

God.
Necrons.
Would they have the Unreliable limitation on their Regeneration, or would you just base it off the damage taken?
And what about those Flayers?
Nasty, irreparable damage.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Uhm, I think it's more 1st ed stuff than anything else. But I don't think this fluff is outdated. The "modern" 3ed and 4ed fluff does not contradict this, it just doesn't mention it.

For much more on on this, and a really good source if you plan on playing a 40k RPG, you should see if you can find the WH40k fluff bible, a nice "little" file with much cool info. How much of it thats official I am not entirely sure of. But on Portent.net it was recogniced as "as good as".
but as I said the stuff is not contradicted by the newer fluff, it just has some that are not included in the new stuff.
(I havn't read all of it, as I havn't actually played a 40k campaign.)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

For a quick n' simple approach, use the example TL 9 armour in Campaigns;
TL 9 Battlesuits for marines, TL 10 Combat Hardsuits for eldar aspects/Tau, combat suits for guardians, regular Flak jackets for Guard...
Orks armoured by GM fiat.
Nids; High pain treshold, and enough HT to keep on going even though they are long dead.

These suits give good protection, and include all the required gadgets.

As for Plasma an Melta weapons, I would say they do damage comparable to a autocannon, but Burn damage; Meltaguns use the Laser cumulative damage rules, and have a ROF of 5, RCL 2, and a puny range.
Plasma guns do major frag damage, as liquid plasma splashes from the impacts. If you want to real evil, threat plasma as WP grenades, each fragment doing 2d burn for d6 turns unless removed.
It will slowly burn through armour, and can brew up vehicles like a molotov coctail, and sets fire to any flammable material it hits. Nasty...
Eldar starcannons do slightly less damage, but has a lot higher ROF, maybe as high as 8 or 10.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Nice and easy, I like it :)

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

You have that last bit backwards. Marines tend to be far more practical about technology than the Adeptus Mechanicus; they certainly don't like alien technolgoy, but that's a separate issue. The Predator Annihilator variant, for instance, came from a time when the Space Wolves were on campaign and had a surplus of lascannons and Predator hulls, but not enough Land Raiders. Their solution? Strip the anti-personnel weapons off your Predators, replace them with lascannons, and get on with the war.

It took the Techpriests several hundred years to approve the design.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I don't agree.
To marines their army is holy, their bolter is holy. When they clean their bolters and mantain their armours they are not even aware that they do it to avoid it malfunctioning. They do it to please the spirits of them, else the spirits will let them down in battle.
You also have to remembe that Space marines are not a Civilisation, they are an organisation. You do not have baby-marines and fmalies of marines. You only have the soldiers, and they come from very different, often primitive, homeworlds. So to them Tech is magical and holy.
Ofcourse they are not stupid either, they know that a bolter is a sort of gun, and a lascannon is a sort of cannon, they know they are weapons. And all they do are go to war, so they do have a certain stategic awareness.
So using the holy lascannons and combining them with the machinespirits of a predator is fair, as long as the spirits of the two get along (Ie: it works and do not malfunction.)

I don't think this is a expression of them being "far more practical about technology".

Btw. space wolves have always been the unortodox brats of the "family" ;)
Many of their doctrines are not recogniced by the inquisition. Even though this doesn't have anything directly to do with technology, it shows that they do what they, themself, think is correct, and not what they are told.

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

I have to correct a few things.

Space Marines of whatever chapter (there are literally thousands of chapters and sub-chapters, according to a comment Gav Thorpe made on their boards) are actually genetic descendants of the Primarchs. Each one is given engineered upgrades to their physical being through genetic manipulation. They don't often come from primitive worlds at all, but from more established worlds of the imperium that can have their genetic lines fully catalogued.

The Imperial Guard is who gets their troops from primitive worlds. Mind you, they get their troops from all the worlds they can handle.


It depends what chapter you're talking about with that. Given the new codex and it's implications with divergent chapters, you can have marines who do view their equipment as a set of tools and nothing more. Of course, you won't have any members of the Astartes Machinus under those chapters...


Given the old fluff, this is entirely correct. The Space Wolves were entirely ignorant of the subtleties of the 'religion' of the imperium (for lack of a better word). Their priests and commanders were entirely divergent because they figured the morons back on Terra didn't know what they were talking about because they were back on Terra and the wolves were fighting in the Eye.

When their next codex comes out I'm assuming they'll rewrite a lot of the fluff concerning them since the 13th company is playable now. Perhaps they'll even loose their vehicles because of their beliefs...

Re: Warhammer 40k weapons
 

Hmm, you might be right, I don't really have all my Wh40k's books with me ATM. but Space wolves are from a primitive world. I think Black templars are as well (Mideavil?). I thought White scars was as well (Atilla the hun steppes and horses). I'm quitesure almost all of the old traitor chapters where as well.
I don't know about Blood angels and Imperial fist I must admit...
I know Ultramarines are from not-primitive worlds, and usual exchange old equipment with new whenever they can, suggesting them to be a bit more practical.

Ok, ok, I give in. Expecially as I'm not into 4ed codex's at all.
But I just wanted to point out that the are certantly not MORE practical with their equipment than the guards.
In fact the statement that most guards comes from primitive world? Where do you have that from? One of the new codex? I was under the impression that most get recruited from industrial worlds with their huge overpopulation. They already have a knowledge about the imperium, guns and a little bit of tech.
Where primitive worlds recruitment would be very difficult, training more complicated and you'll get far less numbers.
It just would make sense... Hey I don't say they don't use sense in the year 40.000. They just don't apply it to tech. ;)