Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

bibotot wrote:
Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.

Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.

Scouts are the better value.
They can have bolters, too. Don't bother.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I think people need to play as Guardsmen for a whoile and get used to S3 AP - guns for a bit. Because Bolt Guns are a huge improvement.

BUT

On the flip side of the coin, you got necron bolt guns that strip hull points crazy easy, then you have tau buffed bolt guns with super range and then you have assault bolt guns with rending (but less range).

I do feel like they are missing something, but at the same time they dont feel like they are that bad.

I think the real problem lies with Marines not the gun. But the point is, it aint so bad.

You point out how other standard weapons are superior to boltguns. Pretty sure it's part of the problem considering they are getting them for less points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bibotot wrote:
Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.

Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.

Scouts are the better value.
They can have bolters, too. Don't bother.

Now I get it! they are trying to sell scouts!!!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I think people need to play as Guardsmen for a whoile and get used to S3 AP - guns for a bit. Because Bolt Guns are a huge improvement.

BUT

On the flip side of the coin, you got necron bolt guns that strip hull points crazy easy, then you have tau buffed bolt guns with super range and then you have assault bolt guns with rending (but less range).

I do feel like they are missing something, but at the same time they dont feel like they are that bad.

I think the real problem lies with Marines not the gun. But the point is, it aint so bad.

You point out how other standard weapons are superior to boltguns. Pretty sure it's part of the problem considering they are getting them for less points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bibotot wrote:
Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.

Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.

Scouts are the better value.
They can have bolters, too. Don't bother.

Now I get it! they are trying to sell scouts!!!

Many of the units I pointed out do not have access to integrated support weapons weapon. Necrons have none. Eldar have none (bar their pistol range Guardian Squads) and Tau have none. Slightly better average guns, but they have to rely on other squads for many jobs that space marines have a chance at doing. Its not the bolt gun. Its the marine that may have an issue.

My SoB are pretty pleased with their bolters. And I usually get to fire them at least twice per squad - once as they jump out of a Rhino at point-blank range and then Overwatch if the enemy didn't quite die.

They could be better, sure... but I have so little else to spend points on that the bulk of any army will be basic bolter sisters. I can just imagine the cries if I brought 31 RENDING sisters to a 750 pts game (minus the Hflamers and meltas, ofc - so 25).

 Desubot wrote:
Man it makes no sense really.

Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.

From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.

To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.

Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.

The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.

They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Man it makes no sense really.

Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.

From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.

To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.

Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.

The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.

They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.

Whats worse is Space Marine Bolters combine the firing of a bullet with the firing of a rocket. The gun from the 60s is 100% rocket. Its not really possible to combine both.

So a bolt gun just uses magic to make sure that it can fire the rocket bullets with no downsides. Which is fine because its future space magic haha. But yea in real life its gotta be bullet or rocket, not rocket bullets.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Man it makes no sense really.

Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.

From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.

To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.

Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.

The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.

They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.

Thats not what a bolt-gun is. A bolt-gun is essentially a high caliber explosive round. I imagine it would function every bit like a semi auto grenade launcher capable of knocking through a small wall before launching molten metal into it's target. So in relation to human weapons today. It would be like a 60 mm HE motar round. Typically these things destroy everything in the room.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Man it makes no sense really.

Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.

From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.

To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.

Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.

The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.

They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.

Thats not what a bolt-gun is. A bolt-gun is essentially a high caliber explosive round. I imagine it would function every bit like a semi auto grenade launcher capable of knocking through a small wall before launching molten metal into it's target. So in relation to human weapons today. It would be like a 60 mm HE motar round. Typically these things destroy everything in the room.

It actually is a Rocket bullet grenade gun.....

Its silly.

 Ailaros wrote:

Carnage43 wrote:There's nothing really wrong with the bolter itself, but it has no place as a mainstay weapon on a 14+ point model.

For example, Inquisition acolytes with bolters for 5 points are pretty solid.

... on a model that has -1 or -2 to all their stats, and don't have ATSKNF, among other things.

But they throw 3x the shots downfield, while having 3 times as many wounds. Against something like a plasma gun, or really any gun that is Str 6 and above and doesn't ignore cover, you are a good deal better off with the acolytes.
This isn't a problem with bolters, but more of a problem with how expensive marines are relative with other troops, and how saves work. Cover doesn't benefit marines as often as it does other troops. A 5+ means marines are twice as good if saves are allowed, but cost 3x as much (and with a higher toughness, the acolytes are still tougher point for point), and put down a significantly smaller amount of fire power. A 4+, or a save ignoring gun, just makes marines seem absurdly overpriced.
If cover worked as a BS modifier, marines would suddenly become a lot better compared to other troops.

 Ailaros wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:The imagination that the enemies die in droves when shot by bolter wielding Marines is wrong.

I'd say it's mostly this. Incorrect expectations. People read a HH novel and get it in their heads that a bolter can mow down twenty six guard regiments in 2.6 seconds and then wonder why they're not as good on the table. Or, of course, they're also not that bad when you don't assume that every unit always has a 4+ cover save in every circumstance, and that forcing models to hide in cover isn't sometimes a very bad thing.

Maybe your meta is different, but it seems that for most people, cover is pretty common. One of the best things about 40k compared to other table tops is the beautiful landscapes you are encouraged to make, and they offer a large amount of cover to troops. Often, it doesn't take a 4+ to make marines seem very overpriced. The above example uses a 5+ and marines still come out looking worse. Many units already have a 4+ save, and AP 4 is not as commonly seen as AP 2/3, meaning marines are often saving at a similar, or slightly worse save, then much cheaper troops.
In addition to this, bolters have been seen as bad before the HH novels came into being. Las/plas has been a staple for a very long time for a reason.

 Ailaros wrote:

As far as over time, bolters have hurt from two main things. The first is that 40k is now about how many monstrous creatures you can cram on a table, and bolters aren't very good against them. Back when basically only tyranid had MCs, that just left light and heavy infantry, and light and heavy vehicles, bolters being able to hurt 3 out of 4 reasonably reliably. They also didn't used to have to deal with fliers. Not really a problems with bolters, but of GW listening to their players when it came to what to add and what balance was.

GW has flat out stated they don't listen to us, the players. They do no market research and do not use external playtesters anymore, and haven't in quite some time.

I wouldn't say bolters can reliably harm heavy infantry, or light vehicles. A terminator takes, what, nearly 18 bolter shots to die? Hardly effective. Light vehicles, unless AV 10, can not be harmed at all by bolters. It takes 9 shots to strip a hull point off, which is a lot better, but it does mean a full squad rapid firing will do 2 hp to an extremely light tank. With special weapons, this gets better, but is still not what I would call reliable. It's why marines have been special weapon delivery systems for ever.

I agree that more MC's and heavy tanks have seen the bolter fade, but these are not the only reasons. It was not a top tier weapon that faded, but rather a mid tier weapon that is scraping the bottom.

 Ailaros wrote:

The other thing as well has been points creep. Even back when they started "sucking" in 3rd ed, it was common to see armies that had much more like 20 dudes and a tank than a 6-foot line of wave serpents. If you adjust for points inflation, then all small arms become a lot better, and bolters even moreso than other small arms. Go play a 500 or 750 point game where your opponent's army isn't 3 riptides and then say that bolters are bad.

? How does less points help? Granted there might be less tanks, which bolters are terrible against, but it doesn't make them better then a pulse rifle, Tesla/gauss, catapaults, and pretty much every other troop weapon that isn't attached to a horde model (who, even then, point for point, comes out tied or better with bolters)

 Ailaros wrote:


As far as specific rules, I can only think of a couple that hurt bolters specifically, such as the change in 5th edition of units giving units behind them a cover save instead of forcing a Ld9 check (which was a tiny bit better), and a vastly more generous vehicle damage table (which, though, have now been replaced with hull points, which arguably make them better).

Hull points helped them, but bolters still aren't acceptable against tanks of any kind really. The special weapon is likely to do as much damage as the entire squad, and costs a lot less.
More cover being available hurts bolters, since they are ap 5. Pulse rifles and especially eldar weapons are hurt by this, but they are not said to be weak, but that is a fair point. It's just not the main reason.
If cover gave a BS modifier, marines would be better, and bolters would become stronger, but they would still be at the bottom of the better troops weapons

I always kind of figured they were kind of what would happen if you took a RPG and used that as the bullet inside a normal shell casing (i.e. completely stupid and totally impractical, but this is 40k we are talking about)

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Man it makes no sense really.

Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.

From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.

To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.

Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.

The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.

They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.

Whats worse is Space Marine Bolters combine the firing of a bullet with the firing of a rocket. The gun from the 60s is 100% rocket. Its not really possible to combine both.

So a bolt gun just uses magic to make sure that it can fire the rocket bullets with no downsides. Which is fine because its future space magic haha. But yea in real life its gotta be bullet or rocket, not rocket bullets.

Ehm, it's not "magic", it's a two-stage munition, which is more than possible to create (and has been). You have standard-bullet-bang in the chamber, achieving lethal velocity at the muzzle, and then the rocket part kicks in to provide greater range and impact of the armor-piercing warhead with its explosive payload.

It hasnt been created

You cannot fire a bullet then have it become rocket propelled. You can have multiple stage rockets and so on. But you cant have a bullet turn into a rocket part way through.

A bullet cannot be a rocket yet.

You can have gyrojet ammunition, but it is not fired like a conventional bullet. Its a small rocket.

Leave bolters alone. Marines just need to be more durable. 2 wounds perhaps? Most ap2/3 stuff would still instant death them. they would just become more durable to small arms fire.

It hasnt been created

It was created by Livermore laboratories in the 80's, some variation of which was used in the PAM anti-structure demolition device.

It has never been fielded in a small-arms weapon.

Its fin guided and does not have any rocket propellant.

It is not a rocket propelled bullet. Its a guided bullet.

I think the guy who said you need to compare bolt guns to lasguns is correct. you also need to consider what bolt guns where primarily designed to fight. They're basicly explosive rounds that penatrate into someone and explode. the damage they do to lightly armored targets is proably absolutly disgusting. the bolt gun was designed pretty much to fight lightly armored fleshies and absolutly destroy them. The bolt gun should be most effective vs Guardsmen, Nid Gaunts, ork Boyz and similer lightly armored targets.

I'd say the AP on em is pretty solid. it'll push through falk cloth and the like but a solid carapice stands a chance of stopping the bolt. the damage of em well.. I suppose that's queastionable. if S4 is eneugh.

That said, does the boltgun reflect how it's depicted? a little but it certinly could be stronger.

I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.


I think if I was gonna give bolt guns a special rule it'd be Shred. or if I wanted to be a bit rediculas I'd make then "fleshbane" I mean... if you get shot and the bullet goes up like a grenade inside you, you're gonna have a bad time. but I freely admit that'd be Over the top movie marines level power

BrianDavion wrote:
I think the guy who said you need to compare bolt guns to lasguns is correct. you also need to consider what bolt guns where primarily designed to fight. They're basicly explosive rounds that penatrate into someone and explode. the damage they do to lightly armored targets is proably absolutly disgusting. the bolt gun was designed pretty much to fight lightly armored fleshies and absolutly destroy them. The bolt gun should be most effective vs Guardsmen, Nid Gaunts, ork Boyz and similer lightly armored targets.

I'd say the AP on em is pretty solid. it'll push through falk cloth and the like but a solid carapice stands a chance of stopping the bolt. the damage of em well.. I suppose that's queastionable. if S4 is eneugh.

That said, does the boltgun reflect how it's depicted? a little but it certinly could be stronger.

I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.


I think if I was gonna give bolt guns a special rule it'd be Shred. or if I wanted to be a bit rediculas I'd make then "fleshbane" I mean... if you get shot and the bullet goes up like a grenade inside you, you're gonna have a bad time. but I freely admit that'd be Over the top movie marines level power

I mostly agree. but for whatever reason one of the BL book has bolters just wreck rowboat girlyman in near full armor. no helm or right hand gauntlet. and these things just destroyed the armor. enough to penetrate his shoulder and midsection.

 Desubot wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I think the guy who said you need to compare bolt guns to lasguns is correct. you also need to consider what bolt guns where primarily designed to fight. They're basicly explosive rounds that penatrate into someone and explode. the damage they do to lightly armored targets is proably absolutly disgusting. the bolt gun was designed pretty much to fight lightly armored fleshies and absolutly destroy them. The bolt gun should be most effective vs Guardsmen, Nid Gaunts, ork Boyz and similer lightly armored targets.

I'd say the AP on em is pretty solid. it'll push through falk cloth and the like but a solid carapice stands a chance of stopping the bolt. the damage of em well.. I suppose that's queastionable. if S4 is eneugh.

That said, does the boltgun reflect how it's depicted? a little but it certinly could be stronger.

I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.


I think if I was gonna give bolt guns a special rule it'd be Shred. or if I wanted to be a bit rediculas I'd make then "fleshbane" I mean... if you get shot and the bullet goes up like a grenade inside you, you're gonna have a bad time. but I freely admit that'd be Over the top movie marines level power

I mostly agree. but for whatever reason one of the BL book has bolters just wreck rowboat girlyman in near full armor. no helm or right hand gauntlet. and these things just destroyed the armor. enough to penetrate his shoulder and midsection.

Well realism and logic beside, bolt round are described as having armor-piercing tips. According to the background, they do it all!

BrianDavion wrote:I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.

Yeah, what they need to do is remove rending from shuriken weapons, not add it to bolters.

Lol. Bolters are fine. Not great, but far from terrible.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Man it makes no sense really.

Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.

From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.

From a fluff standpoint it should be something like salvo 2/3 rending. This would make storm bolters something like salvo 4/6 rending. Would this break the game? No. People would just start using tac marines and terms.

THIS!

Like seriously, it makes it seem pretty preposterous that these are the guys are the military equivalent of a bulldozer for mankind when I can hardly put up a fight with an unaccompanied tac squad

Food for thought:
According to the Forgeworld Horus Heresy books, the Legions initially started out with Volkite weaponry, but the growth of the Legions as they left Terra quickly outgrew the ability make the Volkite weapons, and they were replaced with the boltgun. So, this means marines originally had a 15" S5 AP5 Assault 2 weapon with the Deflagrate rule (unsaved wounds cause additional hits, but those extra hits cannot cause additional hits).

Might be kind of fun to try that in a game, replacing all bolters with Volkite Chargers. Potential for more damage, but at a significantly decreased range.

Anyway, as others have said, the problem has never really been with the boltgun itself, but with the marine carrying it. At least in 2nd Edition marines had the ability to fire twice if they didn't move. Now, a marine firing a bolter is exactly as effective as anyone else fiting a bolter.

One must avoid confusing BL with what 40k really is. The utility of bolters and power armor and SM capabilities varies by author and whoever is the protagonist.

In some books, bolters don't kill anything, in others, they're all S8 AP2. There's a huge amount of variation.

Lets look at how they actually perform in game. A single round of shooting from a squad of tac marines will wipe out 90% of a squad of guardsmen in the open, and cripple a unit in cover. Against what we today would think of as common infantry, these weapons are extremely powerful, whereas a volley of fire from assault rifle type weapons might kill one Space Marine. The math works out pretty well there.

Just like real life however, it's not the small arms that do the bulk of the killing, its the crew served weapons and artillery. For what they are, Bolters are pretty solid.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In some books, bolters don't kill anything, in others, they're all S8 AP2. There's a huge amount of variation.

You're exaggerating. It's not as inconsistent as you think it is, and more importantly it's almost never inconsistent in favour of the rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A single round of shooting from a squad of tac marines will wipe out 90% of a squad of guardsmen in the open

Look at it this way instead:

On average, a Space Marine hosing a Guardsman standing in the open with Boltgun rapid fire at close range will, on average, fail to kill him.

I can't make it work in my head. In fact, it's incredibly grating. Humans are not able to take that kind of punishment. If a heavily trained super-soldier shoots you at close range while you are in the open, firing numerous massive-caliber explosive rounds, you won't 'on average' continue to fight. You will, quite simply, be dead. A red mess on the floor. Any other outcome would be so rare as to be worthy of legend.

Many of you here pride yourselves with military experience. Pray tell, what happens when a soldier is caught in the open, at close range, of a rapid fire explosive weapon in the hands of an elite enemy?

It's like that, turned up to 11.

Just an example of the many incredibly jarring lore-mechanics discrepancies, which is a factor heavily contributing to the fact that my 40k hobby rarely includes gaming. This is not the fault of granularity vs simplicity. This is GW wanting you to buy large amounts of Space Marines, even in relatively minor battles.


Edit: various typos and clarifications.

Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.

I think thats more often than not gonna kill a guardsmen.

Also a hit could mean the round hit next to the Guardsmen. May have been effected by the etc just not becoming a casualty.

Plus who would play if Space Marines killed everything. I have to have enough guardsmen as it is!

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.

Assuming rapid fire:

2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = average 0,8712 kills.

So no, on average he will kill less than one guardsman with close range rapid fire outside of cover.
Which, for reasons previously stated, is really, really immersion-breaking.

Also a hit could mean the round hit next to the Guardsmen.

How hard is it to miss at close range, with rapid fire, when you are a really stable firing platform and have super-elite training?

Very hard.

May have been effected by the etc just not becoming a casualty.

I dunno, getting hit by a shot like that is in the 'blown to bits' category, which seems to fit the definition of a casualty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Plus who would play if Space Marines killed everything. I have to have enough guardsmen as it is!

It's too late to fix entirely by now, but I would have preferred if Marine models were significantly fewer, stronger and true scale to begin with.

So no, you would not need more models. The enemy player would simply need fewer.

You did hit the nail on the head though, in that it's partially for gameplay reasons. The ruleset sacrifices a lot of diversity in favour of trying to achieve balance and ensuring you must buy a lot of models (or, in very rare cases, several very large models) no matter which faction you play.

The result is a game where, in perspective, pretty much all troops are guardsmen. Or guardsmen that are a bit tougher and less armoured and swap ranged for melee ability. Or guardsmen that are a little more expensive and a little tougher overall, and so on.

I always assumed a boltgun was sorta like a RAP weapon system... just advanced thousands of years and miniaturized.

And yes it is still a good infantry weapon..I have many dead orks..tau, guardsmen..etc to attest to its quality.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In some books, bolters don't kill anything, in others, they're all S8 AP2. There's a huge amount of variation.

You're exaggerating. It's not as inconsistent as you think it is,

Hrm, it's pretty wildly inconsistent.

and more importantly it's almost never inconsistent in favour of the rules.

Is that a fault of the rules, or BL simply running off the deep end?

Look at it this way instead:

On average, a Space Marine hosing a Guardsman standing in the open with Boltgun rapid fire at close range will, on average, fail to kill him.

Um, negative...on average the Space Marine should kill him.

The marine should average 0.88 wounds, on average, that means the vast majority of the time, that's a dead guardsmen. A full squad should average 8.88 wounds, that's pretty high odds, that's about 80% the effectiveness of a plasma gun against infantry in the open. A single guardsmen in the open against a single marine in rapid fire range should only survive ~1 of 9 turns.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.

Assuming rapid fire:

2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = average 0,8712 kills.

So no, on average he will kill less than one guardsman with close range rapid fire outside of cover.
Which, for reasons previously stated, is really, really immersion-breaking.

Your interpretation here is incorrect (so is the math slightly, 2*(2/3)*(2/3) should equal 0.888...)

that 0.8 number means that, much more likely than not, that guardsmen will die. We're talking *averages* not *chance*. 0.88 average kills is a very high kill rate, a number below 1 does not mean there will be no kill on average, that would be below 0.5

To put it in other terms then: He will on average kill less than one guardsman.

My point stands.

 Ashiraya wrote:
To put it in other terms then: He will on average kill less than one guardsman.

My point stands.

That's true for almost every unit out there. always less than 2 hits (often 1), chance to wound somewhere in 4/6 or 5/6.