carldooley wrote:
This whole thread is hilarity itself...
'We should give Space Marines a second wound to reflect on the tabletop the resiliency of Space Marines in the fluff.'

'We need more deadly weapons to deal with the 2W Space Marines.'

'Space Marines no longer hit like they used to. Let's make their bog standard weapons more deadly.'

Is anyone willing to consider that this upward spiral of damage and lethality can be laid squarely at the feet of those same people who wanted Space Marines to be more durable?

After all, it isn't like Space Marines should demean themselves on the tabletop by using cover, when THEIR BEST ARMOR IS CONTEMPT?!?

Nah, the issue is far more around the huge increase in output armies got rather than marines getting a 2nd wound. It's actually kinda cute to think that the entire game got massive jumps in killing power purely due to it, I can see how it happened with regards the extra d2 scattered around, but a lot of it is just standard gw leaning hard into a bad idea.

Just seen that Fleshborers can be pumped up to 24" range, Strength 6 for 1/2 CP.

Those Boltguns sure are looking even weaker now... that 3+ save doesn't mean much in a game saturated with -1ap basic firearms.

*Powers up Gauss flayer*
*Has gone recollection of 4th Ed Necrons, when unmodified 6to hit auto wounded, and all Gauss weapons did that.*

 ClockworkZion wrote:
tneva, you missed my point. No one takes them NOW but that doesn't mean no one will take them in the FUTURE. Making adjustments with the future of the game in mind is important too.

Yea sure. Easily killed expensive squad.

They would need something seriously big buff. Like perma trans human or something to make it worth. As is all 2W does is make you weaker. More expensive, getting wiped out just as easily.

There's tougher actual threat units that have big pile of wounds. 20 CSM would be laughable in comparison. Laughably bad. Easy to delete. Bang you are dead. That easy.

They need something ridiculous to make up for nerf of 2W 20 model unit...

 carldooley wrote:
This whole thread is hilarity itself...
'We should give Space Marines a second wound to reflect on the tabletop the resiliency of Space Marines in the fluff.'

'We need more deadly weapons to deal with the 2W Space Marines.'

'Space Marines no longer hit like they used to. Let's make their bog standard weapons more deadly.'

Is anyone willing to consider that this upward spiral of damage and lethality can be laid squarely at the feet of those same people who wanted Space Marines to be more durable?

After all, it isn't like Space Marines should demean themselves on the tabletop by using cover, when THEIR BEST ARMOR IS CONTEMPT?!?

truth here. it was like "my space marines should feel liek tanks" GW responds with a second wound, transhuman strat etc.

other players "we can't hurt space marines" GW responds with making things more lethal

byproduct is most non power armored/aspect warrior infantry are basically crap now as they die in droves and don't really get saves anymore.

now we have "why is everybody taking things good against high armor infantry" when those are the only infantry that work anymore

hoping 10th edition tones the lethality down, i miss being able to play my ork horde list but currently they don't get an armor save against most things and die in droves to morale. I then try to play my mass infantry guard or heavy tau firewarrior lnfantry armies and ... all terrible as they are leaf blowered off the table

 Blndmage wrote:
*Powers up Gauss flayer*
*Has gone recollection of 4th Ed Necrons, when unmodified 6to hit auto wounded, and all Gauss weapons did that.*

Ah, I remember those days. When you thought that auto wounding meant something like rending, then your opponent or judge said, '(I\they) get to make an armor save.'

 G00fySmiley wrote:
hoping 10th edition tones the lethality down, i miss being able to play my ork horde list but currently they don't get an armor save against most things and die in droves to morale. I then try to play my mass infantry guard or heavy tau firewarrior lnfantry armies and ... all terrible as they are leaf blowered off the table

to be fair though... they always did.
A green hordes' defense has always been NUMBERS, not stats.
I mean, look at the Ld stat. Do they still have something like they did; Ld 6 unless there are more that 10 bodies, in which case they autopass?

I used to play the same strategy in Guard; my opponents would kill my guardsmen in buckets, but I'd still win on objectives.

Numbers was their defense in the past yes, but now those ork grunts aren't cheap and suffer A LOT of additional casualties due to morale. Some of their possible layers of saves (FNP and KFF were both 5+ at some point) have also been toned down.

 carldooley wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
*Powers up Gauss flayer*
*Has gone recollection of 4th Ed Necrons, when unmodified 6to hit auto wounded, and all Gauss weapons did that.*

Ah, I remember those days. When you thought that auto wounding meant something like rending, then your opponent or judge said, '(I\they) get to make an armor save.'

 G00fySmiley wrote:
hoping 10th edition tones the lethality down, i miss being able to play my ork horde list but currently they don't get an armor save against most things and die in droves to morale. I then try to play my mass infantry guard or heavy tau firewarrior lnfantry armies and ... all terrible as they are leaf blowered off the table

to be fair though... they always did.
A green hordes' defense has always been NUMBERS, not stats.
I mean, look at the Ld stat. Do they still have something like they did; Ld 6 unless there are more that 10 bodies, in which case they autopass?

I used to play the same strategy in Guard; my opponents would kill my guardsmen in buckets, but I'd still win on objectives.

They always died but they were not being removed as quickly or in as large of numbers. In the case of orks the green tide worked because there were strategems and abilities to restore boyz, there was also a 5++ from kustom forcefield now down to 6++, note that was a 4++ in 5th edition. likewise we used to have a 5+ feel no pain with a paindoc, but now that is a 6++ and unlike other medics they cannot restore squadmembers.

any good player knows you kill 6 of the ork boyz in a 30 man unit then any extra shots are wasted as the weight of dice in combat attrition failures means less die. kill 6 boys in a 30 man and they mathmatically lose 6-7 more. next turn kill 6 again and they lose about 3. so kill 12 boyz make them lose 9 free and now its a tiny unit to finish off turn 3 since they are also slow. With most weapons having -1AP now they don't even get saves on the 6 you need to kill.

the cherry on the gak pie for orks though is the leadership. orks used to be fearless in the turn a waagh was called and they had a bosspole to insted of all running lose D3 models instead. That was replaced with mobrule that worked well enough as big units were very unlikely to run. This edition though yea all of that is gone, ork boyz are among the worst troops in the game hanging out with guardsman debating who is worse. the downside being orks also have another troop the gretchin which literally wear the crown of worst unit in the game king.

 Blndmage wrote:
*Powers up Gauss flayer*
*Has gone recollection of 4th Ed Necrons, when unmodified 6to hit auto wounded, and all Gauss weapons did that.*

I hate to break it to you but Gauss Flayers used to auto-wound on an unmodified 6 to wound, not to hit.

It mattered against Wraithlords and . . . not a whole lot else.

If it makes you feel any better, the current Gauss Flayer also wounds automatically on an unmodified 6 to hit. Granted, so does every other weapon in the game but still...

is it time to "Make Space Marines great again!" ?

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

except as shown above...they weren't AP-1 and AP5 was nothing like AP-1.

Yes, the bottom tier AP for basic weapons that had AP is AP-1, except for a couple editions when it was AP5. Not alike whatsoever. Even though that was the AP they put on the basic guns they wanted to have AP and worked their way up/down from opposite ends of the spectrum.

"Couple Editions". Yeah I found an old 3rd edition Codex. Space Marine bolter was AP5. So 3rd-7th it was AP5. GW released Rogue Trader in 1987. They released 3rd edition in 1998 and 8th edition in 2017. So the Game has been around for 35ish years, and really 1st and 2nd were nothing at all like anything todays game is played. AP was things like APD6+D4+4 so realistically the game as we know it started in 3rd but lets just give you Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition. That means that for 19 of the years the game has existed bolters were AP5 not AP-1. If you are fair about it, bolters have only been AP-1 since 8th which means for 5ish years and going even further than that, they were only AP-1 in 8th and 9th when in tactical doctrine.

Minor point, Semper - in 2nd ed (and RT too, IIRC), weapons had two different stats that you seem to be conflating here:
- Armour Penetration - The measure of how well they penetrated a vehicle's armour, which often did involve some polyhedral dice
- Armour Save Modifier - How much they affected a model's armour save roll.

You need to look at 1st/2nd ed weapon armour save modifiers when comparing to the AP value in use today, not the armour penetration value. GW should've gone back to the "armour save modifier" moniker when the system reverted in 8th, not stuck with the AP term from 3rd through 7th.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
No it's drawing a line in the sand between army types and army popularity. By the logic of people in this thread CUSTODES aren't an elite army. Which is fething bananas.

I'm pretty sure the use of air quotes around "logic" there is mandatory.

Karol wrote:

Well Karol, you pretty much only have to spec into Marines now because so many complained about hordes that cheap chaff infantry are basically useless now

Tau run kroots and DE run kabalites. Same as tyranids run their guants. And other armies being better doesn't help marine. Because either marines are in those rare 2.0 moments, when they don't care if guants or anything else just became a bit better. Or the army is not popular enough or worse impossible to counter without losing army efficiency.

As someone said in this thread, one of the problems all meq have is that all anti tank is generally efficient or super efficient against them. And if neither tanks, nor monsters are run, then we are in the middle of a horde meta which then makes it moot what ever the marine runs.

Kroot aren't run as hordes, they are run MSU and usually only 1 squad because they SUCK compared to the things people would rather take. Kabalites aren't run as horde either. Usually those Kabalites are run as MSU units with heavy/special weapons and not much else. I guess Marine Tacs are Horde now as well since they do literally the same thing

Also, We have no idea how good gants are actually going to be, its all speculation. And i'll take this moment to remind you that a lot of Marine players on this very forum were screaming and ripping their hair out about how OP Ork Boyz were going to be. How well did that turn out?

Karol wrote:

So, with that in mind, why would I bring anti-infantry weapons when I know they are mostly useless against the majority of the game right now when I could instead bring multi-dmg weapons with lots of -AP?

No one takes melta or plasma to counter marines. Marines get countered by stuff in addition to specific weapons or unit formations being good vs something else.

You just agreed with my point...they take them anyway because they are great vs Vehicles and heavy units and they also just happen to be very effective against Marines as well! Why am I taking Rokkitz when I could take Big shootas? Well, because big shootas suck against vehicles and are terrible vs Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:

to be fair though... they always did.
A green hordes' defense has always been NUMBERS, not stats.
I mean, look at the Ld stat. Do they still have something like they did; Ld 6 unless there are more that 10 bodies, in which case they autopass?
I used to play the same strategy in Guard; my opponents would kill my guardsmen in buckets, but I'd still win on objectives.

Not really though. Boyz were durable with numbers yes, but they actually did something. Now they just die in droves for no real gain. Also, those stats have gotten a lot worse durability wise.

LD: It used to be fearless mobz until below like 18models. Now its LD7 with a Nob and you only lose models to attrition on 1s if there is a big mob over half strength incredibly close by. We also used to have Auto-pass morale for D3 mortal wounds on our nobz and Warbosses, now thats a 2CP strat. Yep, we get the honor of killing 9-27 of our own points for the low cost of 2CP.

And as someone else mentioned, KFF went from a 4+ Cover save a few editions ago, to a 6+ Invuln, the Dok went from a 5+ FNP to a 6+ FNP and unlike every other med unit in the game, it can't resurrect models. Overall they've gotten markedly worse than they've been in decades. Where as the biggest complaint as scene in this very thread is that Marines whose base line abilities have all gone up are upset that others are getting buffs which denudes their Marine Bolter porn fantasy.

 stonehorse wrote:
Just seen that Fleshborers can be pumped up to 24" range, Strength 6 for 1/2 CP.

Those Boltguns sure are looking even weaker now... that 3+ save doesn't mean much in a game saturated with -1ap basic firearms.

Imagine playing space marines when they were toughness 3, power armor was a 4+ saving throw and lasguns had -1 AP...

SemperMortis wrote:
And as someone else mentioned, KFF went from a 4+ Cover save a few editions ago, to a 6+ Invuln, the Dok went from a 5+ FNP to a 6+ FNP and unlike every other med unit in the game, it can't resurrect models. Overall they've gotten markedly worse than they've been in decades. Where as the biggest complaint as scene in this very thread is that Marines whose base line abilities have all gone up are upset that others are getting buffs which denudes their Marine Bolter porn fantasy.

At least your heal isn't a stratagem(which means no point in taking multiple) and cost you command points. And take up an HQ slot.
8th edition Wolf Priest could heal 1d3 wounds once per round just like most healers. 9th edition "Chaplain" with the Wolf Priest keyword now has a strat for healing wounds, but doesn't get resurrect strat, or the FNP aura. Space Wolves can't take Apothecaries.

SW don't need many CPs to work though, and taking an HQ slot is never an issue. Wolf Priest is even the cheapest HQ in the codex. There's also no reason to take multiples of it since it's typically one or two units that would really benefit from the healing.

I bring a Wolf Priest everytime I play Space Wolves while I never played the painboy in 9th, not once. Not even ever considered playing it. Healing wounds on units such as TWC is quite useful, much more than a 6+++ for all the infantries/bikers within 3'' of the dok. The Wolf Priest also have litanies to use and can keep up with the fast stuff by taking jump packs, painboy doesn't have any other ability than the FNP aura, must be on foot with 5'', and he's a worse fighter than the priest.

 Niiai wrote:

bat702 wrote:
serious question, I could totally see either in 10th edition or maybe for basic bolters in Chaos Space Marines Codex, that bolters will get significant upgrades to keep up with how killy 40k is getting

I do not think so. I play GSC and SM. Shotguns are S4. But to get acces to S4 i need to drop into the Heavy 3 gun. I really enjoy that a bolter is just as deadly as an close ranged shotgun or a longrange heavy guns.

But less deadly than a short ranged beetle being fired at you from the most expendable of a hive fleets resources.

They're Fleshborers, not Armorborers. They shouldn't have an AP value!

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They're Fleshborers, not Armorborers. They shouldn't have an AP value!

The name has nothing to do with what the gun does. i just reread warriors of Ultramar (tyranids being the enemy in the book) They are not a joke, its a acid covered bug with an armor piecing head that burrows into the target if not penetrating the armor then digging into the soft spots as its a living ammunition. that said the str might be the part they overdid as super deadly to a guardsman, swatted off marines.

That said in the new codex termagants seem to have gotten a great new gun but also a significant point increase alongside it. the old gants game wise were basically useless. 5 points so cheap but their gun was 12 inch range and useless on a worse than guardsman platform for almost the same price (5 points per model vs 5.5 points and a guardsman is not even a very good troop)

They gained 1 armor save so 6+ to 5+, went from 12 inch shot to 18 inch shot, at str 5 ap-1 instead of str 4 ap0, they lost thier large numbers damage buff and cost 2 more points now. They were not worth taking at 5 points, and I don't think they are really now worth the 7 points. Its a better profile and i think if the termagant had been worth 5 points to start with its a reasonable 2 point upgrade, but i guess we will see how it plays out. I just don't think they can compete with warriors in the slot.

I am also not opposed to buffing the bolters if the points are reflected, but space marines already have one of the better troops (compared to other codexes, not the best troops either but better than average) so buffing them would need to come with points, a str 5 ap-1 bolter with current points slap an extra point on them and probably there.

ccs wrote:
It'd be funny to give Chaos bolters a -1ap but not the Imperial ones.
Make the Imperial players wait 2.5 years+ for something that could appear at any moment via FAQ etc - but doesn't "for reasons".

God you guys are salty.

Here's a tip. House Rule it. I've had two-wound Chaos marines since 2020.

 Togusa wrote:

ccs wrote:
It'd be funny to give Chaos bolters a -1ap but not the Imperial ones.
Make the Imperial players wait 2.5 years+ for something that could appear at any moment via FAQ etc - but doesn't "for reasons".

God you guys are salty.

Here's a tip. House Rule it. I've had two-wound Chaos marines since 2020.

houserules only work if both sides agree.

Since some people think "Theyre balanced around having 1 wound", its hard to convince people

Voss wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Just seen that Fleshborers can be pumped up to 24" range, Strength 6 for 1/2 CP.

Those Boltguns sure are looking even weaker now... that 3+ save doesn't mean much in a game saturated with -1ap basic firearms.

Imagine playing space marines when they were toughness 3, power armor was a 4+ saving throw and lasguns had -1 AP...

At least they could gas their foes with relative immunity

SemperMortis 804013 11331746 wrote:
Kroot aren't run as hordes, they are run MSU and usually only 1 squad because they SUCK compared to the things people would rather take. Kabalites aren't run as horde either. Usually those Kabalites are run as MSU units with heavy/special weapons and not much else. I guess Marine Tacs are Horde now as well since they do literally the same thing

Also, We have no idea how good gants are actually going to be, its all speculation. And i'll take this moment to remind you that a lot of Marine players on this very forum were screaming and ripping their hair out about how OP Ork Boyz were going to be. How well did that turn out?



You just agreed with my point...they take them anyway because they are great vs Vehicles and heavy units and they also just happen to be very effective against Marines as well! Why am I taking Rokkitz when I could take Big shootas? Well, because big shootas suck against vehicles and are terrible vs Marines.

kroots are run in 10 man squads, in 10th that is considered a horde unit.
As the orks boys thing goes, yeah marine players didn't like the fact that orks got an updated stats. Any weapon or unit update stats makes their army and their load outs worse. Specially for armies that are not update or for those wierd people who actually want to run marine troops. In the end we found out that the basic ork trooper happens to be a buggy . Same way a basic nid is a monster of some sort or a basic GK is an NDK 50% of the time.
And orks did dunk on marines hard, so in the end the marine players were right to not like their rule set.

As the meta thing goes. This is not an in addition thing, not when winning in events is concerned. I can't think of a top end tournament player in w40k, who would take something to play his soliter list or counter a specific match up , and then check if it is good vs marines too. If a list is bad vs marines, a non top tier army, it is just not played at all. It is not good to be the popular faction, and this is an outside of events thing, who gets countered by stuff like stats, army rules or core rules in addition. And it is a general thing, not a marine specific thing. Just ask anyone who plays or played an army that get hard countered that way. Like knights and scoring terrain rules for example. In events a marine player will be that BT/WS player, that GK with 30 interceptor and maxed out NDKs. Outside of events this may not be a thing, and it is really bad when someone with a just bought ork army, to use your example, rolls you over by accident. Worse the only fix to it , for the marine player, is to play a specific tournament build. And in w40k, as the edition progresses, the further you are in with books for other factions, the harder it becomes to get an army that can do that. Marines fall off the power curve really fast, much faster then other armies. in 8th eldar were like 3ed or 4th book out and they stayed crazy good till 2.0 marines came out, and after that they were just good. Comparing to that marines became a meme as soon as other factions started to get books.

But in the end the argument is moot. non marine players don't care about marine rules, same way marine players don't care non marine rules. The same goes for enjoyment of the game etc In the end it comes down to this. Marine book, looks laughable weak to the stuff which is out now, and no one likes his rules to be weak or laughable, because those armies are not fun to play with. Which doesn't mean you can't fun playing them, but then it involves additional stuff like spending times with friends etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss 804013 11331750 wrote:
Imagine playing space marines when they were toughness 3, power armor was a 4+ saving throw and lasguns had -1 AP...

When your troop option costs 40pts and gets wounded on a +3, and your saves drop to +3 and you are being shot at by stuff that costs 1/8th of your points it does feel exactly like that.

Thematically / lore wise -yes, big time. I had to laugh when I saw the Fleshborer got S5 Ap1 and the Bolter is still plain S4. Its one of the most vaunted weapons in the lore, and one of the most underwhelming in the rules. Its a strange contrast.

Game balance wise I can't say.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Thematically / lore wise -yes, big time. I had to laugh when I saw the Fleshborer got S5 Ap1 and the Bolter is still plain S4. Its one of the most vaunted weapons in the lore, and one of the most underwhelming in the rules. Its a strange contrast.

Game balance wise I can't say.

Bolt rounds don't have teeth.

Karol, you do know that people aren't universally misanthropic a-holes who are entirely selfish and utterly unconcerned with anything besides themselves... Right?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Thematically / lore wise -yes, big time. I had to laugh when I saw the Fleshborer got S5 Ap1 and the Bolter is still plain S4. Its one of the most vaunted weapons in the lore, and one of the most underwhelming in the rules. Its a strange contrast.

Game balance wise I can't say.

Bolt rounds don't have teeth.

Fleshborer beetles don't explode.

I don't think its hard to observe that, barring something in the deep codex, 7 points for a guardsman that has a single S5 AP-1 shot isn't good. The output isn't there versus where the game is at the moment. And paying 40% more for wound counters adds up.

Karol wrote:

SemperMortis 804013 11331746 wrote:
Kroot aren't run as hordes, they are run MSU and usually only 1 squad because they SUCK compared to the things people would rather take. Kabalites aren't run as horde either. Usually those Kabalites are run as MSU units with heavy/special weapons and not much else. I guess Marine Tacs are Horde now as well since they do literally the same thing

Also, We have no idea how good gants are actually going to be, its all speculation. And i'll take this moment to remind you that a lot of Marine players on this very forum were screaming and ripping their hair out about how OP Ork Boyz were going to be. How well did that turn out?

You just agreed with my point...they take them anyway because they are great vs Vehicles and heavy units and they also just happen to be very effective against Marines as well! Why am I taking Rokkitz when I could take Big shootas? Well, because big shootas suck against vehicles and are terrible vs Marines.

kroots are run in 10 man squads, in 10th that is considered a horde unit.

....So kroot are now a horde army by taking 1 unit of 10 or possibly 2-3 units of 10. So anyone who brings 10-30 troops is now running a horde... You might consider that a horde because GW is idiotic and destroyed the entire premise of Horde armies but that is not a horde army. Green Tide back in 7th was 101-301 infantry models. In 8th, Green Tide was 120-180 Models. But now by your definition, Green Tide is 10-30. Bud, a Horde is a playstyle that swaps durability in armor/toughness/wounds for durability in numbers. And any unit which can accidentally be taken out with bolter fire from 1 unit of Marines is not a horde.

Karol wrote:

As the orks boys thing goes, yeah marine players didn't like the fact that orks got an updated stats. Any weapon or unit update stats makes their army and their load outs worse. Specially for armies that are not update or for those wierd people who actually want to run marine troops. In the end we found out that the basic ork trooper happens to be a buggy . Same way a basic nid is a monster of some sort or a basic GK is an NDK 50% of the time.
And orks did dunk on marines hard, so in the end the marine players were right to not like their rule set.

An Ork basic troop choice became Nothing. Because so many players whinged about playing against Horde armies GW went above and beyond and nerfed Ork troops into the ground. Ork boyz are terrible, and would be terrible at 7ppm let alone 9. Grots are hot garbage at 5ppm, they are 0.5ppm cheaper than a guardsmen but without any of the armor/weapons/rules/strats/orders/bonuses etc. And because again, so many whinged, Grots aren't even Objective secured anymore. But don't worry they gave Orkz a 3rd troops choice finally, after literally decades! What is it? Boyz with a 6+ Invuln and S5. Of course they cost more and are just as useless So yeah, Ork players stopped taking their OP T5 troop choices and instead went with Buggies for the most part, and no that does not mean that the Marine players who spent 3 months screaming about T5 were right, it just means that GW accidentally gave orkz a competitive option, but they didn't let it last long. I'll also point out that as of right now, Orkz have 70 Top 3 finishes for GTs/Majors in 9th edition. Marines have 65. Include BA, DA, SW, BT and Grey knights and it goes to 194. So when you say they got "dunked on" you mean, they weren't able to just casually roll over orkz for part of an edition?

Karol wrote:
. Outside of events this may not be a thing, and it is really bad when someone with a just bought ork army, to use your example, rolls you over by accident. Worse the only fix to it , for the marine player, is to play a specific tournament build. And in w40k, as the edition progresses, the further you are in with books for other factions, the harder it becomes to get an army that can do that. Marines fall off the power curve really fast, much faster then other armies. in 8th eldar were like 3ed or 4th book out and they stayed crazy good till 2.0 marines came out, and after that they were just good. Comparing to that marines became a meme as soon as other factions started to get books.

Rarely if ever does someone just "Buy" an ork army and roll over an experienced player. Orkz for one thing are a faction with a lot of models. Even buggy spam takes a long time to assemble/paint and get on the table. And usually the newer players buy infantry which almost universally are terrible this edition. Boyz, Grots, Flashgitz, lootas, burnas, nobz etc, those are all bad choices which end with you losing just by bolter fire, you know, the thing this thread is asking if it needs a buff?

LMAO i'll remind you that Marines were top tier in 7th...like for almost all of it. In 8th they started the edition as top tier, dropped to mid tier as new books came out and finished the edition top tier. 9th you guys started the edition absolutely top tier and are currently MID tier. complaining that you didn't get to stay top tier for longer than you guys usually do is a bit ridiculous.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Karol, you do know that people aren't universally misanthropic a-holes who are entirely selfish and utterly unconcerned with anything besides themselves... Right?

and yet, this stayed up long enough for me to quote it:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They're Fleshborers, not Armorborers. They shouldn't have an AP value!

The name has nothing to do with what the gun does.

What was the point of this whole thread?

A question. Space Marines have long had access to Special Issue Ammunition and Thousand Sons have long had their -2AP boltguns. If bolters in general get buffs, would these things retain their buffs so as to stay 'special'? (Ex, would special issue ammunition still exist, and would the Rubric Bolter go from -2AP to -3AP to retain its bonus compared to every other bolter?)

If you want special bolters, just take the ones that already exist.

 carldooley wrote:

What was the point of this whole thread?

A question. Space Marines have long had access to Special Issue Ammunition and Thousand Sons have long had their -2AP boltguns. If bolters in general get buffs, would these things retain their buffs so as to stay 'special'? (Ex, would special issue ammunition still exist, and would the Rubric Bolter go from -2AP to -3AP to retain its bonus compared to every other bolter?)

I know it's probably not the point you're making but there's an additional issue in that AP tends to yield diminishing returns. IOW, making basic bolters AP-1 is far more impactful than having Thousand Sons bolters go from AP-2 to AP-3.

 vipoid wrote:
I know it's probably not the point you're making but there's an additional issue in that AP tends to yield diminishing returns. IOW, making basic bolters AP-1 is far more impactful than having Thousand Sons bolters go from AP-2 to AP-3.

Considering that the last SM opponent I played against had Salamanders, I'm going to more or less disagree with you there.
But... fair point

 carldooley wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I know it's probably not the point you're making but there's an additional issue in that AP tends to yield diminishing returns. IOW, making basic bolters AP-1 is far more impactful than having Thousand Sons bolters go from AP-2 to AP-3.

Considering that the last SM opponent I played against had Salamanders, I'm going to more or less disagree with you there.
But... fair point

The first point of AP that does SOMETHING is what matters the most.

Going from a 2+ to a 3+ (whether you need AP-1, -2, or -3 to get there!) doubles your damage.
Going from a 3+ to a 4+ increases it by 50%.
And each further number is less.

Karol wrote:

kroots are run in 10 man squads, in 10th that is considered a horde unit.

no lol, 11+ is a horde unit (full blast)

 carldooley wrote:

'Space Marines no longer hit like they used to. Let's make their bog standard weapons more deadly.'

Seems incredibly strange that a marine has AP-1 from their chainsword and their rocket propelled firearm is AP0.

Even at 15 points, the old BT codex Crusader Squads, tactical marines weren't worth it with their current statline. AP-1 on bolt weapons would certainly help. Look at CSM now 12 points with the same statline minus the 2 wounds, are barely viable. They're basically just better Battle Sisters which no-one really takes in any number either.

AP creep and the sheer amount of dice and quality attacks make virtually all non custode or specific defensive stacked infantry feel absolutely useless.

My Orkz hit t5, awesome! but they absolutely still die in DROVES!

Im not opposed to bolters being ap 1, but marines would need to lose doctrines in return since ap 2 standard bolters would be very silly

I mean, it’s only AP2 for 1 or 2 turns. I don’t think it’s that game changing. No-one is complaining about AP-2 bolt rifles.

Orks also need buffs.

The CSM release will tell us what will happen to bolters.

Spoletta wrote:
The CSM release will tell us what will happen to bolters.

We’ve already seen their statline. Still AP0. Lol

Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

They gave them the durability then spent 2 years taking it away via increasing everone elses killyness. Marines have neither again. Also bolters =/= marines

11th ed. Basic marine 3W and t5. 6 months later, basic gun of other factions becomes str 6 D3 or str 5 D2 with possibility to cause MW

If marines get more durability then marine players would immediately start complaining that their weapons can't kill opponent's marines efficiently enough, so they need to be buffed. Then players using other armies would ask for the same thing, and so on...

Well they would complain if scoring and winning required to kill stuff. It is like having supposed strong melee units, but you are moving with the speed of a turtle.
And marines even if their best state, when all other armies did not have 9th ed books, aside for necron and their weak codex, were still losing to Harlequins, Custodes and Orks. Pre 9th codex, pre buffs and nerfs to marines.

I think that getting transhuman as a power armor rule, a lot of marines player will quit complaining about bolter

Dudeface wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

They gave them the durability then spent 2 years taking it away via increasing everone elses killyness.

Which is exactly what needed to happen, although it's still probably in the wrong areas.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

They gave them the durability then spent 2 years taking it away via increasing everone elses killyness.

Which is exactly what needed to happen, although it's still probably in the wrong areas.

Definitely. I've no idea why they decided tanks need to vanish under AT weapons and one-rounding Knights was a goal, but... they're lampshading it too often for it not to be intentional:

WarCom wrote:Much like the T’au Empire’s mighty Stormsurge, this main gun can punch through an Imperial Knight in one go (with a bit of help from Lady Luck), while anything smaller is inevitably reduced to a twisted ruin. It has a respectable rate of fire, so even squadrons of lighter vehicles are at risk of annihilation – something we have a sneaky feeling the Tyranids learned from fighting Speed Mobs in the Octarian War.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I think that getting transhuman as a power armor rule, a lot of marines player will quit complaining about bolter

DAs have it always on on their termintors, blade guard etc. And they are not faring that much better, then other marines. At some point when the saturation of fire power is ultra high, to survive one would really need a ++3 inv, that ignores rules that say they ignore taking inv saves. Probably with re-rolls.

But I can imagine in 14th ed. Basic primaris marines running around with the , no more ethen 3 wounds lost per phase, if the wounds and weapon damage keep scaling up each edition.

I would much prefer most things go to a 5+ save, maybe they can pull this off in 10th edition, and bolters wont need a buff to make the marines feel substantial on the battlefield, even primaris marine bolters tho are super underwhelming imo.

Lets keep in mind many standard infantry has been given a 4+ save when previously had a 5+ save.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
AP creep and the sheer amount of dice and quality attacks make virtually all non custode or specific defensive stacked infantry feel absolutely useless.

My Orkz hit t5, awesome! but they absolutely still die in DROVES!

Im not opposed to bolters being ap 1, but marines would need to lose doctrines in return since ap 2 standard bolters would be very silly

No, you need to be specific about this. Your T5 Ork boyz are now LESS durable point for point before you even consider things going to AP-1 or -2 or anything else for that matter.

To kill 6 Boyz last edition took 21.6 Bolter shots last edition. In a mob of 30 you lost 6 boyz for a grand total of 42pts dead.

To kill 6 Boyz THIS edition takes 32.4 Bolter shots. But here is the kicker, in that same mob of 30 you then lose 1 to morale and a further 4 more to Attrition. Congrats you lost 11boyz not 6 and instead of it being 42pts its now 99pts. So it takes about 50% more bolter shots to kill the same number of boyz, but in doing so they managed to up the dmg to more than 100% higher in terms of points lost. But yeah, lets totally start handing out S5 and AP-1 to everything

SemperMortis wrote:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
AP creep and the sheer amount of dice and quality attacks make virtually all non custode or specific defensive stacked infantry feel absolutely useless.

My Orkz hit t5, awesome! but they absolutely still die in DROVES!

Im not opposed to bolters being ap 1, but marines would need to lose doctrines in return since ap 2 standard bolters would be very silly

No, you need to be specific about this. Your T5 Ork boyz are now LESS durable point for point before you even consider things going to AP-1 or -2 or anything else for that matter.

To kill 6 Boyz last edition took 21.6 Bolter shots last edition. In a mob of 30 you lost 6 boyz for a grand total of 42pts dead.

To kill 6 Boyz THIS edition takes 32.4 Bolter shots. But here is the kicker, in that same mob of 30 you then lose 1 to morale and a further 4 more to Attrition. Congrats you lost 11boyz not 6 and instead of it being 42pts its now 99pts. So it takes about 50% more bolter shots to kill the same number of boyz, but in doing so they managed to up the dmg to more than 100% higher in terms of points lost. But yeah, lets totally start handing out S5 and AP-1 to everything

To be fair thats the fault of the core rules being bad with handling morale. There's tons of stuff you can take from previous editions to make LD matter more, like firing at outside the closest target (which was in 4th, and to contrary to what many people think, I think it was a brilliant rule) or inflicting pinning effects of some kind. But no, now morale is dudes run away. It's lame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
AP creep and the sheer amount of dice and quality attacks make virtually all non custode or specific defensive stacked infantry feel absolutely useless.

My Orkz hit t5, awesome! but they absolutely still die in DROVES!

Im not opposed to bolters being ap 1, but marines would need to lose doctrines in return since ap 2 standard bolters would be very silly

Consolidation of unit profiles would help this for Marines. Tactical Marine options need to be rolled into the Intercessor profile. That said for less lethality I've been a fan of taking away 6" of range for their guns.

Yeah, I don't get the proliferation of 30" range with the assumption that boards will be smaller. That's just a flat out dumb choice for a game that supposedly wants people to charge in with swords rather than hang out in gun lines.

Karol wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
I think that getting transhuman as a power armor rule, a lot of marines player will quit complaining about bolter

DAs have it always on on their termintors, blade guard etc. And they are not faring that much better, then other marines. At some point when the saturation of fire power is ultra high, to survive one would really need a ++3 inv, that ignores rules that say they ignore taking inv saves. Probably with re-rolls.

But I can imagine in 14th ed. Basic primaris marines running around with the , no more ethen 3 wounds lost per phase, if the wounds and weapon damage keep scaling up each edition.

Obviously it would not be sufficient, SMs lack of good weapons, aside from melta.
AP-1 bolter is not what is needed, while more durability army wide is a necessary starting point.
Then a lot of units that now have been forgotten, such as Predator, Storm Raven, Land Raider, Centurion and others, have to be brought in line with the latest codexes, reworking point costs and weapons’ profiles.

The Deer Hunter wrote:

Obviously it would not be sufficient, SMs lack of good weapons, aside from melta.
AP-1 bolter is not what is needed, while more durability army wide is a necessary starting point.
Then a lot of units that now have been forgotten, such as Predator, Storm Raven, Land Raider, Centurion and others, have to be brought in line with the latest codexes, reworking point costs and weapons’ profiles.

Power Creep personified right here.

Marines got a 2nd wound specifically to address durability issues that Marine players constantly complained about. They didn't like all the D1 weapons killing Marines on bad rolls. Now your basic Marine is 2 wounds, he went up a WHOPPING 3pts for that 100% increase in durability against D1 weapons. And here we have another player saying "We need more durability!" Yes..but not. The reason the game is so lethal right now is because Marines became stupidly OP for their points cost which meant the meta had to adjust to dealing with relatively cheap 2 wound infantry. And because the game is called "Warhammer 40k" not "Space Marine Bolter porn" every other faction wanted buffs to deal with the new meta which in turn resulted in higher dmg output against everything which in turn makes a Marine player say things like "MOAR DURABILITY!". It actually mirrors the Inflation in the world right now. "we printed a bunch of money which devalued the currency and made inflation ridiculous! QUICK PRINT MOAR MONEY!"

But lets stick to the threads main point. Go ahead, give Marines AP-1 on their bolters. I expect my Orkz to go to BS4, and my Shootas to go to Assault 5 S5 AP-1 in order to compete

LOL imagine thinking W2 Marines are OP

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

They gave them the durability then spent 2 years taking it away via increasing everone elses killyness.

Which is exactly what needed to happen, although it's still probably in the wrong areas.

If you immediately render the increased durability null, why increase it? You're going to have to explain this to me unless it's a "they never should have been 2w" stance.

Dudeface 804013 11337940 wrote:

If you immediately render the increased durability null, why increase it? You're going to have to explain this to me unless it's a "they never should have been 2w" stance.

When marines make up a large, if not the largest chunk, of stuff you sell. You wouldn't want people to stop buying them. Specially as you don't have a garentee that another army will be just as popular. Being +1 to W, and being the first books out, give the illusion that this time playing the most popular army is going to be fun. this generates both interest in people that played with marine models before and generates sells of new models. You wouldn't want to start the edition with DE, followed by Ad Mecha, rest of the Eldar and tau, because you are risking that your core audiance aka marine buyers, are going to be as happy and as prone to buy new stuff as their csm playing cousins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Deer Hunter 804013 11337763 wrote:

Obviously it would not be sufficient, SMs lack of good weapons, aside from melta.
AP-1 bolter is not what is needed, while more durability army wide is a necessary starting point.
Then a lot of units that now have been forgotten, such as Predator, Storm Raven, Land Raider, Centurion and others, have to be brought in line with the latest codexes, reworking point costs and weapons’ profiles.

I am not sure Marine players would be very happy if their armies were suppose to be made out of squadrons of tanks, squadrons of speeders and as few marines as possible. CSM have something like that and it is not making them happy, or the army popular.

IMO a lot of stuff can't be fixed with stuff, same as a lot of stuff can't be saved with surface style changes GW makes in CA and WD. For every fex spam WD list, there is ton of CAs and WD Inari codex, which didn't change stuff for the better. In dreams one could of course hope for a total game reset. Making the game more skirmish style with fewer models, and more indepth rules. Or quite the opposite where infantry models have more in common with wound counters then single separate models orgenised in units. But I don't think that is how GW works. 10th will come, it will be kind of a like 9th. We will probably get something that requires buying more stuff, maybe faction terrain, maybe spells that are models or something similar. But we will enter it with "old" 9th ed books, with the last 9th ed books being kind of a 10th books.

It would of course be nice, if GW decided to waste, from their point of view, some money get an in house design group, which somehow doesn't go in to imidiate conflict with the old guard, and review core game mechanic and tenants. Then concentrate not on , in the end unimportant, -1AP on bolters or similar rules, but core design questions. Ones like how army X is suppose to be played. Because sometimes it is funny , in the slavic way of thinking what can be funny, to see how an ork buggy become the basic ork army unit.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
LOL imagine thinking W2 Marines are OP

You mean they weren't OP in 8th edition when John Lennon placed in the top 8 at LVO in 2020 with not 1 not 2 but 40 intercessors? Weird, I could have sworn he did insanely well with that build in 2020 at LVO....anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooops, my mistake, Richard Siegler had a similar build with 40 Intercessors in it as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh! And Boris Michev ran 20 of them in 4 squads of 5. Can't forget Boris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SO yeah...I mean, besides those 2 guys who ran 40 intercessors and finished in the top 8 at LVO yeah totally not OP and definitely not a reason why the game meta shifted to D2 weapons with decent AP.

* Obligatory post that several other Marine players finished in the top 8 and were running 15-20 2 wound troops as well.

Aside for a meme razorback/flyers+G-man list for most of 8th ed marines were a bad army, and primaris were borderline unplayable. They got "good" when their wave of 2.0 books came out.
Before that no one took primaris, tacticals etc but rather 15 scouts, and that is why we have scouts in elite now.

Saying that marines were OP, at the end of an edition, and then their new 9th books, combined with the pre book nerfs to PA supplements, eldar in general were good for a short time in w40k history.

Look how marine lists, the few that are being run, look like right now. They spam elite melee units and trade pices with minimal troops. And if they take any it is the forward deployment guys.

Karol wrote:
Aside for a meme razorback/flyers+G-man list for most of 8th ed marines were a bad army, and primaris were borderline unplayable. They got "good" when their wave of 2.0 books came out.
Before that no one took primaris, tacticals etc but rather 15 scouts, and that is why we have scouts in elite now.

Saying that marines were OP, at the end of an edition, and then their new 9th books, combined with the pre book nerfs to PA supplements, eldar in general were good for a short time in w40k history.

Look how marine lists, the few that are being run, look like right now. They spam elite melee units and trade pices with minimal troops. And if they take any it is the forward deployment guys.

Look at how many D2+ weapons are running around right now. Look at how much AP is flying around the table. GO back just 2 editions, to 7th, which was in no way shape or form balanced. But even then we had AP as relatively rare. Now its literally everywhere, so yeah Marines aren't going to do well since a big portion of their cost is tied up in 2 3+ wounds which aren't worth as much anymore thanks to the power curve going dramatically up.

And again, Marines are THE MOST POPULAR ARMY IN THE GAME! so, if you change their profile or make them more durable, the game will adjust fire to target them again since they are the most common statline in the game.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
LOL imagine thinking W2 Marines are OP

You mean they weren't OP in 8th edition when John Lennon placed in the top 8 at LVO in 2020 with not 1 not 2 but 40 intercessors? Weird, I could have sworn he did insanely well with that build in 2020 at LVO....anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooops, my mistake, Richard Siegler had a similar build with 40 Intercessors in it as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh! And Boris Michev ran 20 of them in 4 squads of 5. Can't forget Boris.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SO yeah...I mean, besides those 2 guys who ran 40 intercessors and finished in the top 8 at LVO yeah totally not OP and definitely not a reason why the game meta shifted to D2 weapons with decent AP.

* Obligatory post that several other Marine players finished in the top 8 and were running 15-20 2 wound troops as well.

Tyranids with their garbage 6th edition codex topped before but I'm guessing you didn't bat an eye to that when it happened as you decided to cherry pick a couple of examples out of how many?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
LOL imagine thinking W2 Marines are OP

You mean they weren't OP in 8th edition when John Lennon placed in the top 8 at LVO in 2020 with not 1 not 2 but 40 intercessors? Weird, I could have sworn he did insanely well with that build in 2020 at LVO....anyway.
Ooops, my mistake, Richard Siegler had a similar build with 40 Intercessors in it as well
Oh! And Boris Michev ran 20 of them in 4 squads of 5. Can't forget Boris.
SO yeah...I mean, besides those 2 guys who ran 40 intercessors and finished in the top 8 at LVO yeah totally not OP and definitely not a reason why the game meta shifted to D2 weapons with decent AP.

* Obligatory post that several other Marine players finished in the top 8 and were running 15-20 2 wound troops as well.

Tyranids with their garbage 6th edition codex topped before but I'm guessing you didn't bat an eye to that when it happened as you decided to cherry pick a couple of examples out of how many?

So hold one. Talking specifically about how the meta adjusted to target 2W Marines because they became META DOMINANT at the end of 8th is completely relevant to 6th edition Tyranids?

Bud you either are misunderstanding what is being said in regards to the points being made....or you are lost in the sauce

End of 8th Marines dominated the game. People were spamming CHEAP 2W infantry with all the durability boosts they had easy access to. This was exacerbated by the fact that nobody was really spamming multi-dmg weapons except the heavy stuff that was used to target and slag Knights. And even back then, hitting a Marine squad with a lascannon wasn't a great use of its capacity.

So 9th came out, Marines got a new codex with new tricks and more importantly...more T5 3W Marines. Now, 2+ dmg weapons are the norm rather than the exception. Case and point the new Eldar Shuriken Cannon which is S6 -2AP and 2dmg. Its almost purpose built to feth up Marines.

So go ahead and increase Marine durability and then increase their dmg output, the game will then adjust because they are the most prevalent faction and as such they are the defacto measuring stick we grade against.

What Karol has constantly brought up concerning early 8th edition 2 wound marines (read: Primaris) is that 40k has had 2 Wound marines since 2017.

And in 2017, an Intercessor was 20pts, I believe Auto Bolt Rifles were Assault 2, practicallyno/no weapon options for the Sergeant. No Bolter Discipline, No Shock Assault, No Doctrines. Just +1 W, +1A and with RF Bolt Rifles: R: 30"/AP -1. I can't even remember if Stalker Bolt Rifles were D1 at first anymore. Point is, once a good chunk of other factions were out of their Index, Intercessors and their second wound wasn't impressive.

I know, the Chaos Space Marine codex (the same book I use today for games) also came out in 2017. After some adjusting to Primaris, my Chaos Space Marines usually won games versus loyalists that fielded even a couple of units of Primaris. For the record, CSM were 13pts ppm in 2017 when their codex was released. Standard GW over estimating the value of durability/defense.

Before the Codex: Space Marine 8.5 was released, Intercessors were down to 15pts (I believe, I might be confusing their cost for what it was in Kill Team at the time) and had Bolter Discipline/Shock Assault. They were still pretty bad. This was about the time I started getting in games with my Primaris only army (post-Shadowspear).

Post C:SM 8.5, Intercessors essentially had all the things they do now with a 17ppm price. Auto Bolt Rifles were still a point a piece in 8.5 (but Assault 3). Post 8.5, Intercessors and most Primaris (I can't speak for the Firstborn) basically had everything they have in 9th in C:SM 8.5. In many cases, such as Boltstorm Aggressors and Staying in the same Doctrine all game long, Primaris had more than they do now in 9th. At least at codex release.

As much as people want to point to 2 wound Intercessors breaking 40k, they seem to be forgetting how long space marines have had 2 wound marines. The reason C:SM 8.5 Intercessors did amazing, wasn't because they had two Wounds. Intercessors did amazing because they were underpriced, and for all intents and purposes, had AP -2 (for RF Bolt Rifles) all game long. In context of 9th, does that sound somewhat familiar?

I think part of the reason Karol mentions this is, if I am remembering correctly, they have a lot of Terminators (2W for 8th) in their army. And that didn't exactly allow Grey Knights to compete either. So other than GW having it in their heads that offensive abilities should be at most 0.75 the points of any 1 defensive ability, 2 wound marines are a red herring to what happened to 9th edition 40k.

2 Wound Marines didn't broke the game. What broke the game was Tactical Doctrines, Bolter Discipline and Shock Assault. 3/4 layers of free rules that greatly increased the Space Marines offensive output.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Marines troops need more durability, not more firepower.

The game is already far too killy, no need to add the bolters to the party.

They gave them the durability then spent 2 years taking it away via increasing everone elses killyness.

Which is exactly what needed to happen, although it's still probably in the wrong areas.

If you immediately render the increased durability null, why increase it? You're going to have to explain this to me unless it's a "they never should have been 2w" stance.

It's both a "they never should have been 2w" stance, but also a "Marines shouldn't be making other infantry feel completely obsolete" stance.

Well most of 8th marines didn't have 2W, up till codex 2.0, and weren't making not just infantry, but nothing obsolete. They were a general mid to bad tier army , with which , just as with their chaos cousins, you wanted to run as few actual marines in the army as possible. Preferably non if one doesn't count characters.
Having a faction, which is a popular one, be brought to a point where playing it means not playing it, is not good design and linked to some very unfun moments for the players.

SemperMortis wrote:


And again, Marines are THE MOST POPULAR ARMY IN THE GAME! so, if you change their profile or make them more durable, the game will adjust fire to target them again since they are the most common statline in the game.

More specifically, lots of marine players would immediately complain that their weapons can't hurt enough the most common opponent they face, aka other marines. They'd demand a buff for their weapons and then their models would be "squishy" again .

Marines are fine guys.

yeah you go tell a Crimsion Fist or Imperial Fist player that his faction is fine. Or better yet tell him the thing I was told in 8th, that he should be happy, because DA and WS are good.

Makes as much sense as telling an ork player that his faction didn't get nerf, because tyranids are great.

Tyranids and orks are different factions.

Crimson fists and imperial fists are not factions. SM are. What I'm saying is like saying that a snakebite player is fine because orks are fine. Yes, that snakebite player is fine, just play with another klan's rule and problem solved. Those crimson and imperial fists can certainly play by using other chapters rules. They'd still play the same army and it's 100% legal to do so, they'd just have to remove some named characters eventually. Or play them as regular non named characters with the same loadout, still totally fine.

I bet there are chapter equivalents of admech, tau, drukhari, etc... that have always been lackluster and never taken. Would you consider those players in the need of getting some buffs? Who plays the Coven of Twelve drukhari? Does a coven of twelve drukhari need some buffs?

 Blackie wrote:
Tyranids and orks are different factions.

Crimson fists and imperial fists are not factions. SM are. What I'm saying is like saying that a snakebite player is fine because orks are fine. Yes, that snakebite player is fine, just play with another klan's rule and problem solved. Those crimson and imperial fists can certainly play by using other chapters rules. They'd still play the same army and it's 100% legal to do so, they'd just have to remove some named characters eventually. Or play them as regular non named characters with the same loadout, still totally fine.

I bet there are chapter equivalents of admech, tau, drukhari, etc... that have always been lackluster and never taken. Would you consider those players in the need of getting some buffs? Who plays the Coven of Twelve drukhari? Does a coven of twelve drukhari need some buffs?

1. You miss that Karol plays Grey Knights and yet was told not to complain.
2. If Coven Of Twelve sucks, absolutely.

1) I'm well aware, I was talking about marines.

2) No, I believe something else needs nerfs instead. Coven of twelve in particular is lackluster compared to other drukhari subfactions but still pretty good compared to the average 40k faction.

Karol wrote:
Well most of 8th marines didn't have 2W, up till codex 2.0, and weren't making not just infantry, but nothing obsolete. They were a general mid to bad tier army , with which , just as with their chaos cousins, you wanted to run as few actual marines in the army as possible. Preferably non if one doesn't count characters.
Having a faction, which is a popular one, be brought to a point where playing it means not playing it, is not good design and linked to some very unfun moments for the players.

You have been proven wrong on this very subject more times than I can remember Karol. At no point in 8th were Marines "Bad tier". You can argue they were mid tier and i'll gladly concede that once all the shenanigans appeared they were Mid Tier, but at NO POINT IN TIME were Marines Bad tier in 8th. Yeah, a specific chapter might have had a hard time of it, but that is it. You want to know what Bad tier is? Or Bottom tier? Orkz in 7th. Want to know what was Bottom Tier? Imperial Guard in 9th right now. Marines have had some struggles but since I have been playing the game, no point at all have the majority of Space Marine chapters ever been below Mid tier, and that goes back a long long time

Flashback to stupid 7th formation buffs.

Marine Super Formation Buff was.....Free Transports, which inevitably became Razorbacks with lots of guns.
Ork Super Formation Buff was....Impact hits on all Ork charges....so long as you rolled a 10+ for charge distance. Oh, and because GW, Impact hits for most Ork units was S3 no AP

Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

 Dysartes wrote:
Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

Lol. Why? Orks have their own issues that need to be fixed. Like Boys going down to 8 points PPM and getting more morale buffs given back to them.

This is a topic about bolters, which are anaemic right now.

- Tactical's suck.
- Regular terminators suck.
- Battle Sisters suck.
- Celestian‘s suck.

If they had better bolters they might see more use and justify their point costs more.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

Lol. Why? Orks have their own issues that need to be fixed. Like Boys going down to 8 points PPM and getting more morale buffs given back to them.

This is a topic about bolters, which are anaemic right now.

- Tactical's suck.
- Regular terminators suck.
- Battle Sisters suck.
- Celestian‘s suck.

If they had better bolters they might see more use and justify their point costs more.

The main problem is that the general power level of the game has gone up quite a bit, and that means that very many infantry weapons just don't cut it compared to heavier weapons on other platforms. Generally, I would say that many of the more regular infantry units right now aren't much of a factor in the game. Individual such units might be elevated into it by giving them serious boosts, but that in turn leaves other infantry further behind. Which already was a factor because of the durability boost units like Space Marines got with their second wound. So, we're basically in a game where small arms no longer are relevant without incredible buffs. After all, Space Marines can easily get multiple points of AP on their bolters, and they're still not really being used. The only way to make them more serious contenders is giving them even more upgrades but those would have to be translated into even bigger upgrades for other small arms and that in turn just makes everyone even more glass cannon-y.

Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

You'd have a point if there were a bunch of people defending the new Ork shooting as a concept. The new Dakka weapon rule is trash and I don't think anyone has denied that.

IMO, Death Guard bolters should be plague weapons and CSM bolters should do two damage.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
IMO, Death Guard bolters should be plague weapons and CSM bolters should do two damage.

bolters should not get 2 damage.
more of the game should have the powerlevel of bolters, TONE DOWN the ridiculous weapon profiles that we have right now

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

Honestly. I'd rather see a Shooter Boy go down to 7 points per model, and a Choppa Boy go down to 8 points per model.

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

But how could you make some kind of silly bespoke "Dakka" rule without wrecking the ork arsenal? They might be good otherwise!

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

But how could you make some kind of silly bespoke "Dakka" rule without wrecking the ork arsenal? They might be good otherwise!

They COULD fix it with an Errata that says "Treat Dakka weapons as Assault weapons" with the caveat of getting extra shots at those designated ranges.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's crazy that a bunch of Ork weapons lost Assault. That's so unnecessary and just dumb.

But how could you make some kind of silly bespoke "Dakka" rule without wrecking the ork arsenal? They might be good otherwise!

They COULD fix it with an Errata that says "Treat Dakka weapons as Assault weapons" with the caveat of getting extra shots at those designated ranges.

They won't. Whichever designer came up with dakka would take too big a hit to their ego.

Dakka should've been a weapon keyword that granted you under half range +50% of the Base shots rounded up. (3-->5 for Big shoota, etc ) whilest remaining assault.
Bolters, honestly are fethed thanks to the A4 page full with boltguns+1 that is the primaris arsenal due to upward heavily limited design space.
Shame for non sm factions though, because they will suffer for it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dakka should've been a weapon keyword that granted you under half range +50% of the Base shots rounded up. (3-->5 for Big shoota, etc ) whilest remaining assault.
Bolters, honestly are fethed thanks to the A4 page full with boltguns+1 that is the primaris arsenal due to upward heavily limited design space.
Shame for non sm factions though, because they will suffer for it.

Hence why we need consolidation of Marine profiles.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
IMO, Death Guard bolters should be plague weapons and CSM bolters should do two damage.

bolters should not get 2 damage.
more of the game should have the powerlevel of bolters, TONE DOWN the ridiculous weapon profiles that we have right now

For future editions, yes. But for now, I think it would be simpler to just ramp up the power. Instead of two damage, maybe it could be that an extra roll of six generates on extra hit for bolt weapons.

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator. They gained -1AP in the Tactical doctrine and have a HOST of re-rolls to hit and wound from a number of sources.

In that same time frame the humble Shoota went from 2 shots at 18 to 2 shots at 18, or 3 at 9'. It also lost assault.

I was hoping the 9th edition Ork codex would bring my shootas up to at least the level of the bolter, instead they somehow made it worse. (Loss of DDD and assault).

SO when you complain that bolters need to increase in dmg, you had better be prepared for the inevitable result which will be "Marines aren't durable enough!" "Why are other factions weapons getting upgrades!" etc.

You can deny this to your hearts content, I have played the game and been on this forum long enough to have seen the cycle first hand ;P

Bolters do not innately fire twice at 24", they do not innately have tactical doctrine. Would you swap the shoota for a rapid fire1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun on shoota boys? If you did, would you use them?

SemperMortis wrote:
Between 7th and 9th A bolter went from 1 shot at 24' to 2 shots at 24 if they stand still, or 2 shots at 24 if you are a vehicle, bike or terminator.

I've seen people reference vehicles getting full rapid fire several times... but I can't find that rule. Regular Rapid Fire and Bolter Discipline don't mention vehicles, and vehicles aren't treated as remaining stationary for shooting.
Am I just missing a nested rule or something?

The original version buffed vehicles but the newest version excluded them. I remember getting excited and actually using my land raider crusader for a couple of games for that very reason.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Mental note - petition the Studio for more Ork nerfs, so they can sit below the Guard...

Lol. Why? Orks have their own issues that need to be fixed. Like Boys going down to 8 points PPM and getting more morale buffs given back to them.

A, So Guard aren't bottom of the pile.
B, To see if certain posters' heads explode.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They COULD fix it with an Errata that says "Treat Dakka weapons as Assault weapons" with the caveat of getting extra shots at those designated ranges.

Might need to do a quick review of weapon types after such a change, in case some should gain Dakka and some should lose it, but it's a change that'd make sense.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hence why we need consolidation of Marine profiles.

The first thing we need to do is consolidate all the Dakka accounts of those who push for consolidation of profiles into one single account, as a test case...

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hence why we need consolidation of Marine profiles.

The first thing we need to do is consolidate all the Dakka accounts of those who push for consolidation of profiles into one single account, as a test case...

Our name is Legion for we are many.

Again, people not understanding that consolidation would make the game less overwhelmingly big.

Make ONE captain datasheet, with ALL weapons/armor options

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again, people not understanding that consolidation would make the game less overwhelmingly big.

Make ONE captain datasheet, with ALL weapons/armor options

But that means options, and that could confuse new players!!!!!

Not Online!!! wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again, people not understanding that consolidation would make the game less overwhelmingly big.

Make ONE captain datasheet, with ALL weapons/armor options

But that means options, and that could confuse new players!!!!!

Spoiler:

oh and actually go back to the strength of 40k of your dudes being your dudes, but what do i know.

Yeah lol, because ask a new player to build a legal squad of plague marines/blightlords and its soooo easy now.
Heck, ask a veteran to build these squads and its still a pain in the ass.

IMO datasheets should have : options for the squad leader, options for the other members.

So you could make a tactical/devastator/assault/veteran squad from the same datasheet

Jarms48 wrote:

Honestly. I'd rather see a Shooter Boy go down to 7 points per model, and a Choppa Boy go down to 8 points per model.

They would still be trash. Nobody takes them at 9ppm right now, dropping them a point won't change that, it just makes the troop tax 10pts cheaper, 20 if you take useless shoota boyz. (10 shoota boyz get 20 shots, 6.6 hits, 3.3 wounds and 1.1dmg vs Marines, at 7ppm thats 70pts inflicting about 11pts of dmg to a Marine)

Dudeface wrote:

Bolters do not innately fire twice at 24", they do not innately have tactical doctrine. Would you swap the shoota for a rapid fire1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun on shoota boys? If you did, would you use them?

Which is why I gave the caveat of standing still, you are attempting to build a strawman. Same for the comment about tac doctrine. The point I was making was, the bolter got better across those editions i mentioned, the shoota somehow got worse.

As far as Rapid fire 1 (2 shots if I stand still) S4 no AP on shoota boyz? If I also got BS3+ absolutely! That would be head and shoulders better than what I currently have.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Bolters do not innately fire twice at 24", they do not innately have tactical doctrine. Would you swap the shoota for a rapid fire1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun on shoota boys? If you did, would you use them?

Which is why I gave the caveat of standing still, you are attempting to build a strawman. Same for the comment about tac doctrine. The point I was making was, the bolter got better across those editions i mentioned, the shoota somehow got worse.

As far as Rapid fire 1 (2 shots if I stand still) S4 no AP on shoota boyz? If I also got BS3+ absolutely! That would be head and shoulders better than what I currently have.

I'm not the one strawmanning, the bolter did not get better. Marines got better at firing them. A sister fires 1 shot at 24" even if stationary, they do not get tactical doctrines. Chaos Marines do not get tactical doctrines.

A bolter in 3rd was rapid fire s4 ap5, in 7th it was rapid fire s4 ap5, in 8th it was rapid fire 1 s4 ap- in 9th it is rapid fire 1 s4 ap-. It hasn't changed overall, it just got mildly worse from 7th > 8th.

Dudeface wrote:

I'm not the one strawmanning, the bolter did not get better. Marines got better at firing them. A sister fires 1 shot at 24" even if stationary, they do not get tactical doctrines. Chaos Marines do not get tactical doctrines.

A bolter in 3rd was rapid fire s4 ap5, in 7th it was rapid fire s4 ap5, in 8th it was rapid fire 1 s4 ap- in 9th it is rapid fire 1 s4 ap-. It hasn't changed overall, it just got mildly worse from 7th > 8th.

You sir are arguing semantics. "The gun didn't get better, its just the guy firing who got significantly better at firing it!" I know what you are saying, the point though is that the Marine basic bolter does MORE dmg now than in previous editions.

As far as other factions using them, yeah no real improvement, except for the ones that did like the special ammo, special rules etc. If the bolter gets better than honestly its just going to get insane with how many scream that Marines aren't durable enough and need to be buffed with T5 or 3 wounds or 3+ armor that ignores modifiers etc.

I dont think the bolter is more dangerous than it has ever been, when before ap5 actually wasnt so bad

This would amazing for my Grey Knights. Storm bolters would be way more expensive but I like it.

This edition is too killy as is, way too much stuff needs to be pulled back rather than buffing even more stuff...

 cole1114 wrote:
This edition is too killy as is, way too much stuff needs to be pulled back rather than buffing even more stuff...

This is commonly agreed but that's a long term solution, buffing the bolter is a short term patch job. At the very least it might allow the layering of marine rules to be pulled back.

 cole1114 wrote:
This edition is too killy as is, way too much stuff needs to be pulled back rather than buffing even more stuff...

All the new armies won't be getting substential or core rule changes till they get a 10th ed codex. In the mean time armies that have old books, like necron or marines, are much weaker then what is considered the norm for 9th. Making marines less killy with their 2.0 book, assuming they do get one, would be an odd move. Because then they would be starting 10th with a weaker codex then other faction, so at best a 10th ed book would bring them to the level of 9th ed books of other factions, and then those other factions would get their books, and marines would be weaker again.

Karol wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
This edition is too killy as is, way too much stuff needs to be pulled back rather than buffing even more stuff...

All the new armies won't be getting substential or core rule changes till they get a 10th ed codex. In the mean time armies that have old books, like necron or marines, are much weaker then what is considered the norm for 9th. Making marines less killy with their 2.0 book, assuming they do get one, would be an odd move. Because then they would be starting 10th with a weaker codex then other faction, so at best a 10th ed book would bring them to the level of 9th ed books of other factions, and then those other factions would get their books, and marines would be weaker again.

I would rather they move on to 10th than actually start putting out 2.0 books.

I think marine players would rather have 6 to 8 months of 2.0 rules, then jumping straight to 10th and then becoming irrelevant 4 to 6 months later. Everyone wants to have their for some time, even just to be able to sell an army before they quit.

Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

Imperial Fists have their core army rules based around making bolters even better then those of other marines. IF are one of the worse marine armies right now. And they will definitly go down the rankings, once csm get their extra wound.

Primaris have no special or heavy weapons on their infantry, and those that have heavy weapons are too slow and not resilient enough comparing to how much they cost. For some marines, the heavy/special weapons are so bad that they aren't even running them at all.

And marine bolter buffs, work turn 1 and still make bolters less powerful then other armies basic weapon stats, pre any special army rules they have, and that is on cheaper platforms, meaning that other armies not only have better guns, but they also have more of them. This focuses marines in to melee centric builds, with less shoting. Which does show in armies like WS or BT being the best marine armies. Nothing bad per se, unless you play a marine army which core rules are linked to shoting. You also have to be very good at it and very fast, for such an army to work. And have enough resiliance to bring enough of those melee focused units in to hand to hand combat range. Problem with this, is that the non marines are so fast, so shoty and have ways to avoid melee, that marines can't counter play it or they run in to the problem of having to melee something like a crushar stamped.

The best marine armies are super resilient, be it because extra rules. DA DW rules, invs on a large chunk of army for BT, large part of the army being not marines but vehicles with invs for GK etc An marine army that would try to play the game, the marine way would fail miserably.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

As far as I can see, the basic bolter/boltgun has the same statline now as it did at the start of 8th.

 Dysartes wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

As far as I can see, the basic bolter/boltgun has the same statline now as it did at the start of 8th.

I think it's a little awkward because, while the weapon still has the same profile in and of itself, Marines have also been given stuff like Bolter Discipline and Doctrines. These make the Bolter stronger than its statline taken in isolation, might indicate.

 Dysartes wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

As far as I can see, the basic bolter/boltgun has the same statline now as it did at the start of 8th.

yeah but it gets Bolter discipline and doctrines (for Marines, the most common user)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

As far as I can see, the basic bolter/boltgun has the same statline now as it did at the start of 8th.

yeah but it gets Bolter discipline and doctrines (for Marines, the most common user)

I'm sure gaurd/sisters/chaos marines are all jumping in joy at having at best one of those.

Added bonus, imagine a world where those 2 rules aren't needed because the bolter is good enough without them.

 cole1114 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 cole1114 wrote:
This edition is too killy as is, way too much stuff needs to be pulled back rather than buffing even more stuff...

All the new armies won't be getting substential or core rule changes till they get a 10th ed codex. In the mean time armies that have old books, like necron or marines, are much weaker then what is considered the norm for 9th. Making marines less killy with their 2.0 book, assuming they do get one, would be an odd move. Because then they would be starting 10th with a weaker codex then other faction, so at best a 10th ed book would bring them to the level of 9th ed books of other factions, and then those other factions would get their books, and marines would be weaker again.

I would rather they move on to 10th than actually start putting out 2.0 books.

I'd rather they fix the rules without us paying for a new edition.

Karol wrote:
I think marine players would rather have 6 to 8 months of 2.0 rules, then jumping straight to 10th and then becoming irrelevant 4 to 6 months later. Everyone wants to have their for some time, even just to be able to sell an army before they quit.

I agree Karol, most Marine players would love to have the most broken OP army again for 4-6 months before rolling into the next edition where they will likely be again one of the first codex's and still be one of the strongest armies until everyone else catches up at which time they will begin to suffer from not simply being better than everyone else and we will be right back here talking about how the bolter needs to be S6 AP-3 now and have 4 shots instead of 3.

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

As far as I can see, the basic bolter/boltgun has the same statline now as it did at the start of 8th.

yeah but it gets Bolter discipline and doctrines (for Marines, the most common user)

I'm sure gaurd/sisters/chaos marines are all jumping in joy at having at best one of those.

Added bonus, imagine a world where those 2 rules aren't needed because the bolter is good enough without them.

Guards basic gun is the lasgun, not the bolter
Sisters have other ways to buff their bolters
CSM have "bad" bolters yeah

But i think bolters are fine, the problem is all the extra ap/damage the other weapons have. If everything was at the same powerlevel as bolters, the game would be much more enjoyable because you wouldnt just have units evaporating left and right

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yeah lol, because ask a new player to build a legal squad of plague marines/blightlords and its soooo easy now.
Heck, ask a veteran to build these squads and its still a pain in the ass.

IMO datasheets should have : options for the squad leader, options for the other members.

So you could make a tactical/devastator/assault/veteran squad from the same datasheet

I can atest to that. We had a new DG player who went out crazy as far as customisation goes. The store owner had left over nurgle DG stuff in a big bin and no one wanted it. So he gave like 3000pts of PM, pox walker, etb termis etc. This was the DG dudes first w40k army, he only played AoS before that. He took parts from the AoS nurgle models, sculpted stuff himself. Then when to a local tournament, just after the DG codex got updated, and got informed that his army is confusing, that he can of course play, but he will be scored at 0VP and will not be counted for the top and bottom of the faction rewards.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Yeah lol, because ask a new player to build a legal squad of plague marines/blightlords and its soooo easy now.
Heck, ask a veteran to build these squads and its still a pain in the ass.

IMO datasheets should have : options for the squad leader, options for the other members.

So you could make a tactical/devastator/assault/veteran squad from the same datasheet

I can atest to that. We had a new DG player who went out crazy as far as customisation goes. The store owner had left over nurgle DG stuff in a big bin and no one wanted it. So he gave like 3000pts of PM, pox walker, etb termis etc. This was the DG dudes first w40k army, he only played AoS before that. He took parts from the AoS nurgle models, sculpted stuff himself. Then when to a local tournament, just after the DG codex got updated, and got informed that his army is confusing, that he can of course play, but he will be scored at 0VP and will not be counted for the top and bottom of the faction rewards.

Super anti-player of a decision, that would never pass over here. cool conversions are encouraged

Oh his army was very cool. Ton of work done, he even had self made pox walkers, that fit the theme of his army, which was XVIIth century 30 years war time. But because his DG had illegal weapon load outs, it ended like it ended. Dude doesn't play anymore, but he does paint stuff. I know he made the DG tanks look like Hussite/Kossack war wagons with pox walker crews and all.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Haven't Bolters already been upgraded, complete with buffs that synergize with them?
Also, don't marines have easy access to a bunch of special and heavy weapons?

As far as I can see, the basic bolter/boltgun has the same statline now as it did at the start of 8th.

yeah but it gets Bolter discipline and doctrines (for Marines, the most common user)

I'm sure gaurd/sisters/chaos marines are all jumping in joy at having at best one of those.

Added bonus, imagine a world where those 2 rules aren't needed because the bolter is good enough without them.

Guards basic gun is the lasgun, not the bolter
Sisters have other ways to buff their bolters
CSM have "bad" bolters yeah

But i think bolters are fine, the problem is all the extra ap/damage the other weapons have. If everything was at the same powerlevel as bolters, the game would be much more enjoyable because you wouldnt just have units evaporating left and right

Agreed the game is out of whack and that bolters in isolation match the idea of where lethality should be.

AP-1 bolters would buff many factions, not just marines.

EG:
- Would make Bolt Pistol and Boltgun Character upgrades, and Stormbolter vehicle upgrades for Guard more viable.
- Would make keeping the Hurricane Bolters on Vertus Praetors a more viable option, instead of instantly switching to Salvo Launchers without thought.
- Would make Adepta Sororitas Battle Sister, Celestian, etc squads more viable.
- Would make Chaos Space Marines, Plague Marines, etc more viable.

So it’s not just a marine buff, it helps other lessor performing factions as well. The only faction that might become too good is Grey Knights. Strikes and Inceptors could probably go up another 2 points. Purifiers could probably go up 1 point.

 carldooley wrote:
THEIR BEST ARMOR IS CONTEMPT

I really hope that I don't need to say it, but here goes.
I am not an employee of GW, and I had no idea that they would actually use that as the name of a special rule.

With that said...

How do folks in this thread think of the solid defensive buff in lieu of the offensive one that people kept harping for?

 carldooley wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
THEIR BEST ARMOR IS CONTEMPT

I really hope that I don't need to say it, but here goes.
I am not an employee of GW, and I had no idea that they would actually use that as the name of a special rule.

With that said...

How do folks in this thread think of the solid defensive buff in lieu of the offensive one that people kept harping for?

point changes? just saying lore wise the bolter just doesnt match up anymore

Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

Marine mirror match could be be a bit of a pillow fisted affair, assuming no buffs, a ten man tac squad shooting another marine squad in cover does 2.2 wounds. So two ten man's rapid firing into each other will get to roughly half strength by the end of a five round game.

^Never bring Tacs without a Heavy or Special or Combi or All of the above. Grav Cannon does 2.2 by itself.

I think your math is off on bolters though, I get 1.1 against Meq in cover

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Never bring Tacs without a Heavy or Special or Combi or All of the above. Grav Cannon does 2.2 by itself.

I think your math is off on bolters though, I get 1.1 against Meq in cover

20 shots
40/3 hits
20/3 wounds
20/18 or 10/9 wounds

Math is on Insectum's side. Kingheff, did you forget to include the cover bonus? That would double the damage to 2.2, as you said.

Oops, yeah, only gave them a 3+.
So are tacs with special weapons the go to troops choice for marines now?
Basically anything without strong ap is fairly useless now, so bolters, flamers etc out and plasma, meltas etc are in? Could end up being a decent buff to hordes, ironically.

The thing is, Bolters/Flamers didn't get worse from AoC, everything else did. I'd say plain boltguns are a better choice now than pre-dataslate.

Pre-dataslate, going from AP0 to AP-1 against a Marine was worth 50% damage (fail save on 2 numbers to fail save on 3). So against other Marines Boltgun kinda-but-not-really got a 50% damage boost... because everything else got worse by 1 AP.

I've been using a single Boltgun shot from a Marine (S4 AP0 D1 3+BS, no doctrines/tactics/etc) as a benchmark, and a Flamer is worth 5.25 shots on average, pre and post-Dataslate since they get d6 autohits and are the same stats as Boltgun. A (single shot of) Grav-gun was worth 6.66 shots pre-DS and is now 5.33 post. For comparison, non-Overcharged Plasma was worth 3.33 pre, now 2.66 post. Overcharged Plasma was 8.33 pre and now 6.66 post.

That said, a Grav-cannon has 4 shots of Grav, so is worth 21.33 boltgun shots all by itself... more than a 5-man squad of Auto Intercessors at 15 shots.

 kingheff wrote:
Oops, yeah, only gave them a 3+.
So are tacs with special weapons the go to troops choice for marines now?
Basically anything without strong ap is fairly useless now, so bolters, flamers etc out and plasma, meltas etc are in? Could end up being a decent buff to hordes, ironically.

Intercessors still have the Rapid Fire and Transhuman Physiology strats. Auto Bolt Rifles still generate considerable weight of fire. Regular Bolt Rifles are going to have AP -1 for some of the most critical times (Turn 2,3) of the game. Assault Intercessors are mostly weight of melee attacks and might be around on Turn 3 or later to make use of Assault Doctrine. Infiltrators and Incursors are taken not for their base shooting, but the extras they have. Finally, Heavy Intercessors are less there for offense and more there for defense (which Armor of Contempt is going to very much add to), though; S5 weapons do seem to do okay despite so few shots being made.

I think the Heavy weapon option variants of Primaris Troops (Stalker and Executor) may have taken a step back. However, my experience with them is they are usually kinda swingy and easy for an opponent to take a some spring out of their step (making them move, giving them bad targets most of the game especially Turn 1, etc.).

More importantly, while I think space marines will be back as something for a tournament player to consider, I don't think this buff is going to see them commonly taking top spots. Nor any of the other factions that gained it. More of all of them jumping up a tier. Which could include major wins. So even space marine players should probably still consider the factions that are still doing really well more than worry their Troop choice isn't going to handle other space marine players. I think there are far better non-Troop options to tackle mirror or other Armor of Contempt factions.

I have always considered Tactical Marines as a viable choice among space marine Troop options, depending on what the player wants out of their army. Running Tacticals just means the player has to be more specific in what they want them to do compared to many of the Primaris options. I'm sure someone will figure out a 'best', but overall; I think space marine Troop options are doing pretty good. Much better than a lot of other factions' Troop options, at any rate.

I'm not sure everything else getting worse improves bolters though, aside from the fact that they're free so you're not spending points to achieve not much.
But maybe this is gw's sneaky way to make imperial fists great again since ignoring cover is arguably very valuable in games against power armour.

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage 2 or D3. Personally, it makes more sense to represent a bolt's internal explosion as extra Damage rather than extra Strength (or by adding more MWs to the game) – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round (similar to a modern light cannon shell), then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. This would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or tougher units.. which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. Extra Damage would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines without infringing on pulse weapons or similar, and would give them a bit more oomph against the big, scary monsters they're often deployed against in the lore. D3 damage could also achieve that in a way that's both more dynamic and clunky. Heavy bolters could potentially get +1 Damage as well (making them premier anti-Gravis/Custodes weapons), but IMO that's not necessary.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

The thing is, almost all weapons used in 40k are some pretty horrifically powerful tools of destruction. A bolter indeed causes a mess, but gauss flayers literally break down people to their atoms and are known to carve even through tanks. Shuriken catapults fire streams of monomolecular disks that cut through everything. Plasma carbines fire plasma, Tyranids have all kinds of fun beasties they launch, splinter rifles use horrible poisons and cause truly tremendous pain, and so on. And even lasguns are quite powerful compared to today's weapons. Just boosting bolters means that other weapons need significant boosts at the same time.

And, of course, space marines would have to become a good bit more expensive, which would lead to all sorts of fun as well.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

The thing is, almost all weapons used in 40k are some pretty horrifically powerful tools of destruction. A bolter indeed causes a mess, but gauss flayers literally break down people to their atoms and are known to carve even through tanks. Shuriken catapults fire streams of monomolecular disks that cut through everything. Plasma carbines fire plasma, Tyranids have all kinds of fun beasties they launch, splinter rifles use horrible poisons and cause truly tremendous pain, and so on. And even lasguns are quite powerful compared to today's weapons. Just boosting bolters means that other weapons need significant boosts at the same time.

And, of course, space marines would have to become a good bit more expensive, which would lead to all sorts of fun as well.

I agree with everything you've just said, but not necessarily that it's a problem... weapons should be represented characterfully on the tabletop, and Marines should be more potent/expensive IMO.

Bring on pulse weapons that are essentially light plasma guns. Bring on low-strength, armour-piercing shuriken weapons. Bring on living ammunition that can re-roll wounds, or splinter weapons that debuff Ld.

Not to devalue lasguns; sometimes I wonder if las weapons should come with traits like accuracy buffs (no recoil/bullet lag), or even be penalised for shooting through smoke.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

Making a standard troop weapon have a random damage amount would be imo one of the worst things for the game. imagine the tedium rolling it out vs an army with army wide feel no pain. Also a bolter being able to put 3 damage on a vehicle or monstrous creature is a pass for me, though I think monstrous creatures and vehicles should minus 1 from damage profiles to a minimum of 1.

I also don't think you can give bolters AP unless you change the doctrines. sorry but turns of ap-2 bolters as a main gun is really too powerful for the current points, there is a world where it works but you would need each bolter marine to go up a few points per model. space marines in my opinion with the new armor of contempt in their profile have some of the best troops and other unit profiles in the game for the points.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

Making a standard troop weapon have a random damage amount would be imo one of the worst things for the game. imagine the tedium rolling it out vs an army with army wide feel no pain. Also a bolter being able to put 3 damage on a vehicle or monstrous creature is a pass for me, though I think monstrous creatures and vehicles should minus 1 from damage profiles to a minimum of 1.

I also don't think you can give bolters AP unless you change the doctrines. sorry but turns of ap-2 bolters as a main gun is really too powerful for the current points, there is a world where it works but you would need each bolter marine to go up a few points per model. space marines in my opinion with the new armor of contempt in their profile have some of the best troops and other unit profiles in the game for the points.

Then just making them flat D2 then. Or rolling two wound die for every hit. Or finding a sensible way for them to deal additional mortal wounds.

I personally think it's a bit stupid for doctrines to affect AP at all... IMO, when thinking about the core weapon stats, external factors like doctrines should work around them and not vice versa. And to me, given the lore around bolters (and other weapon statlines), AP1 seems more than appropriate.

If a nercon gauss flayer and gauss reaper are both damage 1 (both of which literally turn the matter hit into atoms) are still damge 1 i don't think bolters get to have a fluff reason to break into D2 for thier mainline guns.

rolling 2 wound dice per hit also adds tedium to rolls, and hell no to a standard infantry dealing mortal wounds that would either break the game or make a marine need to cost 50 points per model

I get that people like the idea of rokkit bullets but compared to the tech behind most factions guns (outside orks which are just big slug throwers for main guns) the imperial bolter is really not that special, its the marine wielding it for accuracy that makes it devastating.

I can see giving it a strength increase as its a large caliber projectile, assumign doctrines not affecting ap even ap-1 (now conveniently ignored by half the armies)

With the new armor of of contempt rules, it will be really hard to buff the standard bolter, it really is a major buff (altho to durability) to space-marine armies.

Ialso really feel like games-workshop wants to bring back the MEQ meta that we were used to seeing (that being the expectation to face a MEQ list atleast 50% of the time you typically play 40k).this would make the suggested -1ap bolter pretty useless anyways.

An ap buff to bolters would be useless against other marines, which is somewhat lore compliant.

Also keep in mind that marines just got buffed, so asking for another buff is too much at this time.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

The thing is, almost all weapons used in 40k are some pretty horrifically powerful tools of destruction. A bolter indeed causes a mess, but gauss flayers literally break down people to their atoms and are known to carve even through tanks. Shuriken catapults fire streams of monomolecular disks that cut through everything. Plasma carbines fire plasma, Tyranids have all kinds of fun beasties they launch, splinter rifles use horrible poisons and cause truly tremendous pain, and so on. And even lasguns are quite powerful compared to today's weapons. Just boosting bolters means that other weapons need significant boosts at the same time.

And, of course, space marines would have to become a good bit more expensive, which would lead to all sorts of fun as well.

I agree with everything you've just said, but not necessarily that it's a problem... weapons should be represented characterfully on the tabletop, and Marines should be more potent/expensive IMO.

Bring on pulse weapons that are essentially light plasma guns. Bring on low-strength, armour-piercing shuriken weapons. Bring on living ammunition that can re-roll wounds, or splinter weapons that debuff Ld.

Not to devalue lasguns; sometimes I wonder if las weapons should come with traits like accuracy buffs (no recoil/bullet lag), or even be penalised for shooting through smoke.

The issue is the scale of the game, mostly. If there were 30 models on the larger side, I'd fully agree with giving every basic weapon so many characteristics. I'd love a skirmish game with varied weapons and lore accurate stat lines. Kill Team doesn't do this for me.

G00fySmiley wrote:If a nercon gauss flayer and gauss reaper are both damage 1 (both of which literally turn the matter hit into atoms) are still damge 1 i don't think bolters get to have a fluff reason to break into D2 for thier mainline guns.

I agree, but they should be buffed too (in different lore-accurate ways... Gauss weapons strip matter, they don't provide the instantaneous lethality of something like an exploding shell).

E.g. Gauss weapons never needing more than a 4+ to wound regardless of target toughness. They should also get better AP than a bolter.

G00fySmiley wrote:I get that people like the idea of rokkit bullets but compared to the tech behind most factions guns (outside orks which are just big slug throwers for main guns) the imperial bolter is really not that special, its the marine wielding it for accuracy that makes it devastating.

I can see giving it a strength increase as its a large caliber projectile, assumign doctrines not affecting ap even ap-1 (now conveniently ignored by half the armies)

Compared to other basic infantry weapons, it really does pack a lot of raw killing power. It's not just the "rokkit bullets" that hit you like a modern light cannon round, it's the fact that they penetrate and then explode internally as well. Comparable weapons today would rank far higher than a bolter's current statline IMO... 20mm rounds for example have a similar diameter to a bolter shell, and often contain explosives, but are powerful enough that they generally aren't even used against infantry targets.

bat702 wrote:With the new armor of of contempt rules, it will be really hard to buff the standard bolter, it really is a major buff (altho to durability) to space-marine armies.

Just_Breathe wrote:An ap buff to bolters would be useless against other marines, which is somewhat lore compliant.

Also keep in mind that marines just got buffed, so asking for another buff is too much at this time.

As mentioned elsewhere, I really think special rules should be considered around core weapon stats, not vice versa. Statlines should come first. All else should be supplementary.

If marine bolters get an ap buff to match the lore (which barely touches the tabletop) then you have to make some changes to other guys stuff. Ork guns would be spitting out at least 4 shots at s4/5.

We really need to remember that, at this scale, abstractions for weapons are very important. The Bolt weapons and Gauss weapons being similar is fine, because 50 Necron Warriors vs 40 Space Marines with substantial differences in weapons doesn't need to be modeled as much as 6 Necrons vs 5 Space Marines or 20 Guardsmen. I'd love a game that has these differences, but at such a large scale, the differences don't matter as much for basic weapons, and it's more important to model how they'd actually fight with large scale technology and army forces.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If marine bolters get an ap buff to match the lore (which barely touches the tabletop) then you have to make some changes to other guys stuff. Ork guns would be spitting out at least 4 shots at s4/5.

I personally like the idea of Ork shootas being something like Assault 4, S3. They seem like they should have the same power as something like a high-calibre autogun or lasgun, but be able to saturate a target with massed dakka... even indiscriminately, on the move. A big shoota would then ideally be something like Assault 6, S4.

Maybe Ork weapons like shootas could even have "User" or "User-1" values in place of a flat Strength value... the bigger the Ork, the higher they are in the pecking order and the bigger the gun they get.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
We really need to remember that, at this scale, abstractions for weapons are very important. The Bolt weapons and Gauss weapons being similar is fine, because 50 Necron Warriors vs 40 Space Marines with substantial differences in weapons doesn't need to be modeled as much as 6 Necrons vs 5 Space Marines or 20 Guardsmen. I'd love a game that has these differences, but at such a large scale, the differences don't matter as much for basic weapons, and it's more important to model how they'd actually fight with large scale technology and army forces.

I get what you're saying, but to people like me the weapon statlines do matter beyond the simple arithmetic they represent... especially if they can be made more characterful without slowing the game.

Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

 Just_Breathe wrote:
An ap buff to bolters would be useless against other marines, which is somewhat lore compliant.

Also keep in mind that marines just got buffed, so asking for another buff is too much at this time.

Honestly I don't think mirror matches should be considered outside how even Chapter Traits feel.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

Lasguns are more powerful than people think... they do damage comparable to something like a 12.7mm HMG or anti-material sniper round today.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

Lasguns are more powerful than people think... they do damage comparable to something like a 12.7mm HMG or anti-material sniper round today.

Yes, and a grot blaster is loaded with bullets just as strong, that typically do squat to an ork. The entire point of 40k is it being huge scale, lasguns are strong, but orkzes is stronga .
I will acknowledge that lasguns are better in a lot of aspects though, recharging with a campfire and little/no recoil depending on the author.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side tangent, ever notice how much guard books under power orks?, they go from shrugging off five bolt shells to dying in two center of mass lasgun shots. It’s strange .

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:


Side tangent, ever notice how much guard books under power orks?, they go from shrugging off five bolt shells to dying in two center of mass lasgun shots. It’s strange .

its almost as if the books were in-world propaganda that always makes the "good guys" look strong

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

Lasguns are more powerful than people think... they do damage comparable to something like a 12.7mm HMG or anti-material sniper round today.

Yes, and a grot blaster is loaded with bullets just as strong, that typically do squat to an ork. The entire point of 40k is it being huge scale, lasguns are strong, but orkzes is stronga .

Ya, which is where their T5 comes in. Any tougher and they'd be wounding Orks on the same roll as Titans.

Also calling bollocks on grot blastas being lasgun-powered. Maybe on the tabletop, but lore-wise I doubt they pack the same punch (unless they were looted laspistols).

Grot blasters are (at least in newer 40k stuff) one/two shot pistol/shotgun things that just unleash a pretty huge blast but are violently unstable. To orks small caliber stuff you can trust grots with is the same strength as las fire.
I’m not saying grot blasters are better, they’re total crap in every other aspect. They’re just the same strength about. (On average, you can’t really put too many strict labels on ork tek to be fair.)

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Grot blasters are (at least in newer 40k stuff) one/two shot pistol/shotgun things that just unleash a pretty huge blast but are violently unstable. To orks small caliber stuff you can trust grots with is the same strength as las fire.
I’m not saying grot blasters are better, they’re total crap in every other aspect. They’re just the same strength about. (On average, you can’t really put too many strict labels on ork tek to be fair.)

I think it's a total mish-mash, probably... a combo of S3, S2 and even S1 weapons that are left around in discard piles. For every grot with a hard-won hand cannon you've probably got another with the 40k (or at least, Ork) equivalent of an airsoft pistol.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Grot blasters are (at least in newer 40k stuff) one/two shot pistol/shotgun things that just unleash a pretty huge blast but are violently unstable. To orks small caliber stuff you can trust grots with is the same strength as las fire.
I’m not saying grot blasters are better, they’re total crap in every other aspect. They’re just the same strength about. (On average, you can’t really put too many strict labels on ork tek to be fair.)

I think it's a total mish-mash, probably... a combo of S3, S2 and even S1 weapons that are left around in discard piles. For every grot with a hard-won hand cannon you've probably got another with the 40k (or at least, Ork) equivalent of an airsoft pistol.

Grots aren't idiots. They aren't geniuses either, but they're smart enough to bring their best guns to a fight.

Notably, said best gun is still S3 AP0 D1 with a crappy range, but it's their best.

Grots are pretty smart little buggers, I’d say they could use lasguns better than guardsman due to sheer Vietcong-esque virtues. They’re certainly more agile and spiteful, and have a higher propensity for traps.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Grots are pretty smart little buggers, I’d say they could use lasguns better than guardsman due to sheer Vietcong-esque virtues. They’re certainly more agile and spiteful, and have a higher propensity for traps.

This just ain't true. Guardsmen are already fairly elite in comparison to most human forces in the Imperium (being drawn from among the best troops on recruiting worlds), and if they're well-trained in one thing, it's how to use a lasgun. Especially if they come from a place like Cadia, where even kids are (or were... ) expected to have basic lasgun competencies.

They’re certainly a better shot and a better soldier, but can they crawl through your sewer pipes to shoot your butt when you’re on the latrine?, thought not.

Plus you have child soldiers trained from birth, orks have competent soldiers from birth.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Grots are pretty smart little buggers, I’d say they could use lasguns better than guardsman due to sheer Vietcong-esque virtues. They’re certainly more agile and spiteful, and have a higher propensity for traps.

This just ain't true. Guardsmen are already fairly elite in comparison to most human forces in the Imperium (being drawn from among the best troops on recruiting worlds), and if they're well-trained in one thing, it's how to use a lasgun. Especially if they come from a place like Cadia, where even kids are (or were... ) expected to have basic lasgun competencies.

Custodes are better trained, Astartes are better trained, Sororitas are better trained, Tempestus are better trained, Skitarii are better trained.

IG is better trained than random PDF, too bad random PDF is irrelevant to the scope of the game.

Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:They’re certainly a better shot and a better soldier, but can they crawl through your sewer pipes to shoot your butt when you’re on the latrine?, thought not.

Plus you have child soldiers trained from birth, orks have competent soldiers from birth.

Fair enough.

Tyran wrote:Custodes are better trained, Astartes are better trained, Sororitas are better trained, Tempestus are better trained, Skitarii are better trained.

Aka the overwhelming minority of Imperial forces (just the ones that get all the attention).

Tyran wrote:IG is better trained than random PDF, too bad random PDF is irrelevant to the scope of the game.

... but not the scope of the lore, which is what I was talking about. Compared to most unaugmented human soldiers in the larger 40k universe (PDFs, militias, etc), the Imperial Guard is quite prestigious and elite.

Besides, you could make an argument for Conscripts being reflective of PDFs and other human militaries.

In 2e, Boltguns were S4 AP -1. I'd be down to go back to that, as long as we get rid of AoC. At the same time, they should flatten most longarm bolt weapons to that same profile. There's too much bolt weapon bloat in the game.

Hecaton wrote:
In 2e, Boltguns were S4 AP -1. I'd be down to go back to that, as long as we get rid of AoC. At the same time, they should flatten most longarm bolt weapons to that same profile. There's too much bolt weapon bloat in the game.

Wasn't that the edition in which SM cost 30ppm though?

Hecaton wrote:
In 2e, Boltguns were S4 AP -1. I'd be down to go back to that, as long as we get rid of AoC. At the same time, they should flatten most longarm bolt weapons to that same profile. There's too much bolt weapon bloat in the game.

No. Keep AoC, make ALL basic boltguns AP0 (including the "extra super special" primaris bolters). The game needs less lethality, not more.

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
In 2e, Boltguns were S4 AP -1. I'd be down to go back to that, as long as we get rid of AoC. At the same time, they should flatten most longarm bolt weapons to that same profile. There's too much bolt weapon bloat in the game.

Wasn't that the edition in which SM cost 30ppm though?

Yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
In 2e, Boltguns were S4 AP -1. I'd be down to go back to that, as long as we get rid of AoC. At the same time, they should flatten most longarm bolt weapons to that same profile. There's too much bolt weapon bloat in the game.

No. Keep AoC, make ALL basic boltguns AP0 (including the "extra super special" primaris bolters). The game needs less lethality, not more.

AoC is a bad idea because it privileges "protagonist" factions. Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off. Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Putting some ap on bolters while toning down some of the more egregious weapon profiles is fine. But I guess I'm assuming Doctrines would be reworked in that context. If Doctrines stay basically the same, Boltguns can stat AP 0.

Hecaton wrote:
Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off.

Then grow up?

Hecaton wrote:
Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Because unlike you and Space Marines, they don't tend to have that much contempt for their opponents while there's a scrap going on...

Hecaton wrote:
AoC is a bad idea because it privileges "protagonist" factions. Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off. Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Putting some ap on bolters while toning down some of the more egregious weapon profiles is fine. But I guess I'm assuming Doctrines would be reworked in that context. If Doctrines stay basically the same, Boltguns can stat AP 0.

Agree, especially that AoC is incongruous. If you want to make power armour essentially 2+ GW, just make it 2+ (maybe in 10th).

And as said before, things like doctrines should work around weapon stats, not vice versa. It makes no logical sense that a doctrine can grant bonuses like extra AP anyway. Special ammunition sure... not intangible, abstract things like doctrines.

But you do understand that there are just as many power armoured factions with doctrines as there are without it. And the balance to power armour or termintor armour being bad, can't be tweeking to the doctrins.

But I would love to get special ammo, the way GK had it. +1Str, blessed ammo so should be doing D2 like SoB blessed bolter, and then give GK a psychic power option to either turn 6' to hit in to MW or auto wound on +4. GW can remove smite from the game after that.

Karol wrote:
But you do understand that there are just as many power armoured factions with doctrines as there are without it. And the balance to power armour or termintor armour being bad, can't be tweeking to the doctrins.

Why not? All's fair in love and Warhammer (and 10th ed).

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
AoC is a bad idea because it privileges "protagonist" factions. Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off. Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Putting some ap on bolters while toning down some of the more egregious weapon profiles is fine. But I guess I'm assuming Doctrines would be reworked in that context. If Doctrines stay basically the same, Boltguns can stat AP 0.

Agree, especially that AoC is incongruous. If you want to make power armour essentially 2+ GW, just make it 2+ (maybe in 10th).

And as said before, things like doctrines should work around weapon stats, not vice versa. It makes no logical sense that a doctrine can grant bonuses like extra AP anyway. Special ammunition sure... not intangible, abstract things like doctrines.

As mentioned in here many times - get rid of the crutch rules for marines and just fix the game/weapons to not need them. Rather than giving them a 2+ save though, just strip back on d2+ and AP in general seems a wiser plan, but we know they won't do that so we're stuck with "power armour is less easy to penetrate".

I mean, they might do that with 10th (or other updates). Rules like AoC are essentially tacit acknowledgement by GW that they know the current state of things isn't working.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
AoC is a bad idea because it privileges "protagonist" factions. Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off. Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Putting some ap on bolters while toning down some of the more egregious weapon profiles is fine. But I guess I'm assuming Doctrines would be reworked in that context. If Doctrines stay basically the same, Boltguns can stat AP 0.

Agree, especially that AoC is incongruous. If you want to make power armour essentially 2+ GW, just make it 2+ (maybe in 10th).

And as said before, things like doctrines should work around weapon stats, not vice versa. It makes no logical sense that a doctrine can grant bonuses like extra AP anyway. Special ammunition sure... not intangible, abstract things like doctrines.

AoC is not a buff for power armours though. It's a buff to every unit, or almost every unit, that belong to a few specific factions. Terminators, tanks, etc... all benefit from AoC. If the rule changes in order to give +1save to the units that benefit from it, those who already are 2+ need to be 1+ which isn't supported by the rules. And units like terminators or land raiders, but also any other vehicle that has or hasn't a 2+ sv, deserved that buff much more than 3+ sv dudes, which were already performing well.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I mean, they might do that with 10th (or other updates). Rules like AoC are essentially tacit acknowledgement by GW that they know the current state of things isn't working.

Oh I agree, but as much as we saw the lethality tide creep in over the last 2 years, if they decide that a course correction is needed, I'm not sure waiting 4 years to get there is a wise move. They'd need to go back to index hammer or a more flexible digital distribution.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Karol wrote:
But you do understand that there are just as many power armoured factions with doctrines as there are without it. And the balance to power armour or termintor armour being bad, can't be tweeking to the doctrins.

Why not? All's fair in love and Warhammer (and 10th ed).

There is nothing fair in w40k. Fair and balanced could be a synonym for bad, specially as the edition progresses. The GK codex in 8th had had a whole paragraph in the codex release article about how GW wanted to make the army balanced and fun to play. They achived their goal. 4 codex in, it didn't even matter that much what you were playing. Perfect balance as long as you play vs yourself.

As mentioned in here many times - get rid of the crutch rules for marines and just fix the game/weapons to not need them. Rather than giving them a 2+ save though, just strip back on d2+ and AP in general seems a wiser plan, but we know they won't do that so we're stuck with "power armour is less easy to penetrate".

Aha, and how would you do that? the problem is not the case of lets fix one book and it will be good. No they would have to fix, GK, 1ksons, DG, BT, IF, SW,Ultras, CSM, SoB, DW, RG, WS and possibly more if we ever get a WE or EC book in this edition. The "fix" would last years, and because it would have to affect so many books, it would only be done at an edition start. This means that GW would have to notice and aknowladge that there maybe a problem with power armour factions over a year before 9th ed end, so they can rewrite 10th core rules and the rules for the initial space marine books.
This means, that there is little chance that the early 10th ed codex and core rules will have those changes, unless GW decides to make 9th ed longer.

And even this is just half the problem. Because while working on the marines, GW would still have the problem of all the armies that were build to kill 2W t4 +3sv models, with multiple options to ignore invs, cause MW etc. So if GW just focused on marines and the first year of 10th was 12 power armoured books one after another, those new books would have to face against those 9th ed power houses, which would love the idea of weaker marines with fewer defences and lower killing power.

Karol wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Karol wrote:
But you do understand that there are just as many power armoured factions with doctrines as there are without it. And the balance to power armour or termintor armour being bad, can't be tweeking to the doctrins.

Why not? All's fair in love and Warhammer (and 10th ed).

There is nothing fair in w40k. Fair and balanced could be a synonym for bad, specially as the edition progresses. The GK codex in 8th had had a whole paragraph in the codex release article about how GW wanted to make the army balanced and fun to play. They achived their goal. 4 codex in, it didn't even matter that much what you were playing. Perfect balance as long as you play vs yourself.

As mentioned in here many times - get rid of the crutch rules for marines and just fix the game/weapons to not need them. Rather than giving them a 2+ save though, just strip back on d2+ and AP in general seems a wiser plan, but we know they won't do that so we're stuck with "power armour is less easy to penetrate".

Aha, and how would you do that? the problem is not the case of lets fix one book and it will be good. No they would have to fix, GK, 1ksons, DG, BT, IF, SW,Ultras, CSM, SoB, DW, RG, WS and possibly more if we ever get a WE or EC book in this edition. The "fix" would last years, and because it would have to affect so many books, it would only be done at an edition start. This means that GW would have to notice and aknowladge that there maybe a problem with power armour factions over a year before 9th ed end, so they can rewrite 10th core rules and the rules for the initial space marine books.
This means, that there is little chance that the early 10th ed codex and core rules will have those changes, unless GW decides to make 9th ed longer.

And even this is just half the problem. Because while working on the marines, GW would still have the problem of all the armies that were build to kill 2W t4 +3sv models, with multiple options to ignore invs, cause MW etc. So if GW just focused on marines and the first year of 10th was 12 power armoured books one after another, those new books would have to face against those 9th ed power houses, which would love the idea of weaker marines with fewer defences and lower killing power.

They release either indexes at the start of the edition again or a PDF with new points and weapon stats - easy and we're already 1 year out now, 10th is estimated to be summer next year. The fact they handed out AoC shows they know there is a problem.

 Blackie wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
AoC is a bad idea because it privileges "protagonist" factions. Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off. Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Putting some ap on bolters while toning down some of the more egregious weapon profiles is fine. But I guess I'm assuming Doctrines would be reworked in that context. If Doctrines stay basically the same, Boltguns can stat AP 0.

Agree, especially that AoC is incongruous. If you want to make power armour essentially 2+ GW, just make it 2+ (maybe in 10th).

And as said before, things like doctrines should work around weapon stats, not vice versa. It makes no logical sense that a doctrine can grant bonuses like extra AP anyway. Special ammunition sure... not intangible, abstract things like doctrines.

AoC is not a buff for power armours though. It's a buff to every unit, or almost every unit, that belong to a few specific factions. Terminators, tanks, etc... all benefit from AoC. If the rule changes in order to give +1save to the units that benefit from it, those who already are 2+ need to be 1+ which isn't supported by the rules. And units like terminators or land raiders, but also any other vehicle that has or hasn't a 2+ sv, deserved that buff much more than 3+ sv dudes, which were already performing well.

Hell, why not just give them a 1+ save at this point. s fail anyway.

I personally think armour should be reworked. Make higher armour stats better (0 = no armour, 2 = flak armour, 4/5 = power armour, etc), and make attackers roll to beat them. That way there's no limit on the maximum armour values, and you don't end up with stupid concepts like 1+ saves. Also makes saves easier to calculate on the fly... 2-1 is easier than 4+ -1).

I know it's important for defending players to feel active during their opponent's turn, but that happens more often now with strategems anyway.

1+ or even 0+ saves worked perfectly in Warhammer Fantasy for ages. The concept is far from being stupid, its application (aka 1+ = 2++) might be.

Hecaton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
In 2e, Boltguns were S4 AP -1. I'd be down to go back to that, as long as we get rid of AoC. At the same time, they should flatten most longarm bolt weapons to that same profile. There's too much bolt weapon bloat in the game.

No. Keep AoC, make ALL basic boltguns AP0 (including the "extra super special" primaris bolters). The game needs less lethality, not more.

AoC is a bad idea because it privileges "protagonist" factions. Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off. Why don't Meganobz have that ability?

Putting some ap on bolters while toning down some of the more egregious weapon profiles is fine. But I guess I'm assuming Doctrines would be reworked in that context. If Doctrines stay basically the same, Boltguns can stat AP 0.

Ok, I have to admit, I don't know how to argue with the logic that basically says "Factions that I don't like/play shouldn't have nice things". I mean, at least you're honest about your bias. But, why would you want to extend the "privilege" to them of increasing the lethality of their most basic and widespread weapons? In fact, the most common weapons in what is already a far too lethal edition? Removing Doctrines would only affect loyalists, CSM, SoB, and Death Guard would not be affected.

Also, it's very interesting to discover that CSM are a "Protagonist faction". That seems odd, considering they've been poorly treated for the past decade and a half. Perhaps you could write a memo reminding gw that CSM are "Protagonists ", and should get the proper treatment. I mean, not on the level of "Protagonists" like loyalists or CWE, but maybe SoB level? Hopefully, if that happened, it wouldn't "piss you off". We obviously wouldn't want that.

A return to indexhammer is extremely unlikely, it will piss of the entire fanbase far more than the imbalance does.

Plus it is GW, their way to "solve" things is with rule creep so I expect 10th to have more inbuilt defensive rules: more terrain rules, night fight, maybe even penatlies for firing at max range, etc.

I think a full on reset is unlikely.
But its not impossible they could release some "weapon updates in 10th" that strip out a lot of the AP, damage etc.

In terms of the protag thing it’s like Sm->other imperium armies->Csm->Eldar->other xenos

Guard kinda exist in a weird nebulous state that fluctuates along the scale though.

 Dysartes wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Frankly as someone who doesn't play any of them it pisses me off.

Then grow up?

Appreciating fairness is a mature outlook, not an immature one.

 Dysartes wrote:
Because unlike you and Space Marines, they don't tend to have that much contempt for their opponents while there's a scrap going on...

If all you have in response to my comment is to be a clever dick, then you don't have much to contribute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Ok, I have to admit, I don't know how to argue with the logic that basically says "Factions that I don't like/play shouldn't have nice things". I mean, at least you're honest about your bias. But, why would you want to extend the "privilege" to them of increasing the lethality of their most basic and widespread weapons? In fact, the most common weapons in what is already a far too lethal edition? Removing Doctrines would only affect loyalists, CSM, SoB, and Death Guard would not be affected.

You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don't want my factions to have nice things at the expense of others, I want the game to be approximately fair. I play Harlequins too, I know exactly what having an unearned advantage looks like.

Moreover, I was describing a hypothetical future rebalancing of the game. You'd have to take into account something different to do with the other power-armored factions in that case.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also, it's very interesting to discover that CSM are a "Protagonist faction". That seems odd, considering they've been poorly treated for the past decade and a half. Perhaps you could write a memo reminding gw that CSM are "Protagonists ", and should get the proper treatment. I mean, not on the level of "Protagonists" like loyalists or CWE, but maybe SoB level? Hopefully, if that happened, it wouldn't "piss you off". We obviously wouldn't want that.

Get off it. You know what I meant; CSM getting AoC is an incidental byblow; they've been without 2w basic troopers for a while now, because GW lavishes attention on certain factions while putting others in a disinvestment cycle. It's one thing to have uneven levels of attention in a release schedule, it's quite another to have uneven levels of attention in balance, and it's not good for the game.

Hecaton is correct. Chaos Marines of all flavors got AoC through luck, not consideration.

GW don't want people thinking they deliberately gimp CSM and hand all the shiny toys to the loyalists, but they're happy to do it as long as it doesn't look like it on the surface.

I just want to highlight this, and its not to piss on I_am_a_spoon, he just happens to be the most recent target of this mindset. This is how a lot of gamers apply logic in this game and get upset when the game doesn't match their version of how the game should look. This isn't just Marine players btw, its all players.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

Now compare how he views Ork weaponry on the table top.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

I personally like the idea of Ork shootas being something like Assault 4, S3. They seem like they should have the same power as something like a high-calibre autogun or lasgun, but be able to saturate a target with massed dakka... even indiscriminately, on the move. A big shoota would then ideally be something like Assault 6, S4.

Maybe Ork weapons like shootas could even have "User" or "User-1" values in place of a flat Strength value... the bigger the Ork, the higher they are in the pecking order and the bigger the gun they get.

Now, you could absolutely adjust points to match this mindset, but the argument as presented in these two similar posts is that basic Marine Weaponry (bolters) should get AP-1 AND go from 1D to D3D. While at the same time, the lackluster (useless) Shoota should go from Dakka 3(2) to Assault 4 but lose strength. And the as crappy Big Shoota should go from Dakka 5(3) to Assault 6 but again, lose strength.

So against a Marine, the bolter just went from 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.22dmg to 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.66dmg or 3x the dmg output vs a T4 3+ model.
The shoota just went from 3 shots, 1 hit, 0.5 wounds and 0.16 dmg to 4 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.14dmg

Impressive how often these mindsets appear where people want to buff their own weapons...in this example to 3x the power, while literally decreasing or giving a side grade buff to everyone else.


And again, i'm not picking on you spoon, because trust me you aren't the only person on these forums who makes these arguments.

If you really want to the game to match the fluff...well you are going to have a bad time. In the fluff a single spacewolf can run rampant through a mob of hundreds of boyz. So 1 Space Marine should cost 300pts and 1 boy should cost 1pt, that way we can have the game accurately reflect the fluff. Also in the fluff Wazdakka Gutsmek can 1v1 a Warlord Titan on his warbike. So.....how do we accurately depict that?

Also, Marine Bolters fire caseless ammunition, but because GW is made in the UK where none of them know what a gun is, all their models have ejection ports and most fluff pictures have them releasing a stream of casings from their ejection ports...which shouldn't exist because...caseless ammunition. Yes I am aware that GW has since retconned this little error but it still makes my point, fluff isn't a part of the game and it really should be because half the authors who write fluff are muppets who didn't do anywhere near enough research. The great and terrible Matt Ward and his Grey Knights bathing in Sisters of Battle Blood is a great example of wtf

Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

SemperMortis wrote:


If you really want to the game to match the fluff...well you are going to have a bad time. In the fluff a single spacewolf can run rampant through a mob of hundreds of boyz.

On that, you also have examples of 5-6 Space Marines (the protagonist, no less!) getting overhwelmed by 30 or so Orks in Helsreach, so suddenly, 300 pts Marines don't make as much sense.

To be fair semper I think both shootas and bolters are in the same boat of a neglected weapon profile. You're right some people sometimes can't work out what is a buff to some other factions or a nerf as they aren't familiar or have subconscious bias.

Fun little counterpoint though, the suggested changes from spoon would increase their bolters efficiency against orks by 0% whereas it would buff shootas into orks and also the ability to advance and shoot isn't something minor if they got some melee teeth back, although assault 4 s4 would be better obviously and feel more of an appropriate comparison.

Dudeface wrote:
To be fair semper I think both shootas and bolters are in the same boat of a neglected weapon profile. You're right some people sometimes can't work out what is a buff to some other factions or a nerf as they aren't familiar or have subconscious bias.

Fun little counterpoint though, the suggested changes from spoon would increase their bolters efficiency against orks by 0% whereas it would buff shootas into orks and also the ability to advance and shoot isn't something minor if they got some melee teeth back, although assault 4 s4 would be better obviously and feel more of an appropriate comparison.

AP-1 negates their armor.
Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To be fair semper I think both shootas and bolters are in the same boat of a neglected weapon profile. You're right some people sometimes can't work out what is a buff to some other factions or a nerf as they aren't familiar or have subconscious bias.

Fun little counterpoint though, the suggested changes from spoon would increase their bolters efficiency against orks by 0% whereas it would buff shootas into orks and also the ability to advance and shoot isn't something minor if they got some melee teeth back, although assault 4 s4 would be better obviously and feel more of an appropriate comparison.

AP-1 negates their armor.
Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

I seem to recall the context being in addition to the removal of doctrines and consolidation of bolter profiles so would cone out as a wash on the ap-1, the fnp comment is a fair point, didn't occur to me as it's not often considered for lists right now but if I'm wrong then my apologies.

SemperMortis wrote:
Now, you could absolutely adjust points to match this mindset, but the argument as presented in these two similar posts is that basic Marine Weaponry (bolters) should get AP-1 AND go from 1D to D3D. While at the same time, the lackluster (useless) Shoota should go from Dakka 3(2) to Assault 4 but lose strength. And the as crappy Big Shoota should go from Dakka 5(3) to Assault 6 but again, lose strength.

So against a Marine, the bolter just went from 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.22dmg to 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.66dmg or 3x the dmg output vs a T4 3+ model.
The shoota just went from 3 shots, 1 hit, 0.5 wounds and 0.16 dmg to 4 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.14dmg

Impressive how often these mindsets appear where people want to buff their own weapons...in this example to 3x the power, while literally decreasing or giving a side grade buff to everyone else.

Nah, I get where you're coming from. It's a valid point. IMO I've been pretty blatant about wanting a stronger boltgun; the current bolter profiles seem very lacklustre and indistinct, especially for weaponry with such interesting mechanisms and ballistics. In my defence, I've also been arguing for things like better AP on pulse weapons in other threads (which didn't win any friends there either ).

And yes, it's true that the change I suggested would make bolters more effective against multi-Wound models. Although in your comparison you chose to calculate 3 shots on the current Dakka 3(2) shoota, which doesn't always get 3 shots... unlike an Assault 4 one would always get 4, and be able to advance as well. That seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Where I mainly disagree is your notion that we shouldn't be able to suggest changes that benefit some factions more so than others. GW themselves do this all the time.

Making the bolter or shoota or pulse rifle better isn't actually the point (in my mind anyway). The point is representing weapons in the tabletop in ways that are lore-accurate and characterful. I'd much prefer a game in which models and their capabilities were represented authentically, and the points reflected that... rather than vice versa.

Also I primarily play AM. If you ever see me suggesting Damage 2/D3 lasguns, then you can slap me down.

 Bobthehero wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


If you really want to the game to match the fluff...well you are going to have a bad time. In the fluff a single spacewolf can run rampant through a mob of hundreds of boyz.

On that, you also have examples of 5-6 Space Marines (the protagonist, no less!) getting overhwelmed by 30 or so Orks in Helsreach, so suddenly, 300 pts Marines don't make as much sense.

The big reason "game should match the fluff!" is a bad argument is that the fluff is propaganda written to sell models. In Space Marine books the Space Marines are the greatest thing in the world and can take on armies all by themselves. In Ork books the Orks are the greatest thing in the world and can take on armies all by themselves. None of it is in any way consistent with itself, and if you picked one version of anything as the definitive one all you'd end up doing is picking one protagonist faction to make a "Movie Marines"-style list for.

Hey, in my example, it's actually from a Marine centric book, but Helsreach is very well written in that regards that Marines aren't written up as boringly overpowered.

JNAProductions wrote:Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

Ya, but -1 AP would take down their save to a 4+, so more damage gets through that way. Although to be fair, the comparison doesn't take AP-boosting doctrines into account (which I think are bollocks in their current state and should go).

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

Ya, but -1 AP would take down their save to a 4+, so more damage gets through that way. Although to be fair, the comparison doesn't take AP-boosting doctrines into account (which I think are bollocks in their current state and should go).

Armor of Contempt.

AP-1 is the same as AP0 going into Marines, excepting Bladeguard Veterans and other 3+ armor models with a Shield of some sort.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

There is also the further issue that bolter equipped units have access to heavier weapons to improve their damage output.

From purely gameplay perspective, a tactical with a bolter isn't supposed to be killy and if you want a killy tactical you get him a plasma rifle or a lascannon.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

You don't always roll a 2 or 3 on a d3. Your damage is capped at 2, so you take the average damage, which is 1.67 or 5/3.
And Armor Of Contempt means that, against MEQ, AP-1 is the same as AP0 in most circumstances.

 Tyran wrote:
There is also the further issue that bolter equipped units have access to heavier weapons to improve their damage output.

From purely gameplay perspective, a tactical with a bolter isn't supposed to be killy and if you want a killy tactical you get him a plasma rifle or a lascannon.

Primaris don't have access to heavy weapons. And for GK taking heavy weapons to replace the stormbolters is an actual downgrade, specially for the power armoured troops which in order to do so, lose the nemzis force weapons which they pay for anyway.

It’s almost like the entire gimmick of Primaris not having integrated special weapons to make you buy more units of dedicated specialists makes the player suffer as a whole.

JNAProductions wrote:Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

I'll admit I don't get this one. FNP is rolled against every point of damage taken?...

JNAProductions wrote:Armour of Contempt.

AP-1 is the same as AP0 going into Marines, excepting Bladeguard Veterans and other 3+ armor models with a Shield of some sort.

That's right.

Tyran wrote:From purely gameplay perspective, a tactical with a bolter isn't supposed to be killy and if you want a killy tactical you get him a plasma rifle or a lascannon.

Well they're supposed to be killy relative to some things. And there are examples of bolter-specific army rules/strategems that capitalise on bolter lethality. I know you're talking specifically about gameplay, but in terms of lore a boltgun-armed Astartes is supposed to be very, very killy.

Also assuming what you've said is true... why can't that change (even a little)?

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

I'll admit I don't get this one. FNP is rolled against every point of damage taken?...

Yes-if you take 1 damage on a FNP 6+ Wound 1 model, you roll one die. On a 6, that wound is ignored.
If you take 2 damage instead, you roll two dice. For each 6, one point of damage is ignored, so you'd need two 6s (about a 3% chance) to save the model.
3 damage, need three 6s (or less than half a percent chance).
So on and so forth.

 JNAProductions wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

You don't always roll a 2 or 3 on a d3. Your damage is capped at 2, so you take the average damage, which is 1.67 or 5/3.
And Armor Of Contempt means that, against MEQ, AP-1 is the same as AP0 in most circumstances.

Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

That mindset is in my opinion rife throughout the 40k rules writing team. I just can't figure out how someone who understands orkz would write the new "Dakka" rules, getting rid of DDD and come to the conclusion that it was a buff. Going from Assault 2 with exploding 6s generating new shots to Dakka 3(2) with the 3 being at half range on an 18' range gun but taking away assault so it can't advance and shoot... I just really really want someone in GW to hire a couple solid ork players to help write rules or at least playtest so they stop using this broken mindset of whats good for Marines has to be good for everyone else.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

You don't always roll a 2 or 3 on a d3. Your damage is capped at 2, so you take the average damage, which is 1.67 or 5/3.
And Armor Of Contempt means that, against MEQ, AP-1 is the same as AP0 in most circumstances.

Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

That mindset is in my opinion rife throughout the 40k rules writing team. I just can't figure out how someone who understands orkz would write the new "Dakka" rules, getting rid of DDD and come to the conclusion that it was a buff. Going from Assault 2 with exploding 6s generating new shots to Dakka 3(2) with the 3 being at half range on an 18' range gun but taking away assault so it can't advance and shoot... I just really really want someone in GW to hire a couple solid ork players to help write rules or at least playtest so they stop using this broken mindset of whats good for Marines has to be good for everyone else.

But the thread is about if the bolter needs a buff, not another avenue to complain about shoota boyz. Yes they suck, you've shown it multiple times, but this isn't the place.

JNAProductions wrote:Yes-if you take 1 damage on a FNP 6+ Wound 1 model, you roll one die. On a 6, that wound is ignored.
If you take 2 damage instead, you roll two dice. For each 6, one point of damage is ignored, so you'd need two 6s (about a 3% chance) to save the model.
3 damage, need three 6s (or less than half a percent chance).
So on and so forth.

I see what you meant now, thanks.

SemperMortis wrote:Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

First of all, I really don't think the shoota suggestion was a nerf. You used the maximum number of shots in your comparison (50% more damage than Dakka 3/2 would have done at beyond half range) while conveniently ignoring that Assault 4 would mean 4 shots regardless of range and the ability to fire after advancing... and after all that, 0.02 less damage to MEQ? Sorry, but your response just seems outright melodramatic (and misrepresentative). Btw, against GEQ (my actual chosen faction, for the record) the revised shoota would be equal or better at every range.

And yep, my suggested boltgun profile constitutes a significant improvement over current boltguns (against multi-Wound models anyway). That was the whole point. I'm not sure why you think I'm being blind or duplicitous here.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Yes-if you take 1 damage on a FNP 6+ Wound 1 model, you roll one die. On a 6, that wound is ignored.
If you take 2 damage instead, you roll two dice. For each 6, one point of damage is ignored, so you'd need two 6s (about a 3% chance) to save the model.
3 damage, need three 6s (or less than half a percent chance).
So on and so forth.

I see what you meant now, thanks.

SemperMortis wrote:Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

First of all, I really don't think the shoota suggestion was a nerf. You used the maximum number of shots in your comparison (50% more damage than Dakka 3/2 would have done at beyond half range) while conveniently ignoring that Assault 4 would mean 4 shots regardless of range and the ability to fire after advancing... and after all that, 0.02 less damage to MEQ? Sorry, but your response just seems outright melodramatic (and misrepresentative). Btw, against GEQ (my actual chosen faction, for the record) the revised shoota would be equal or better at every range.

And yep, my suggested boltgun profile constitutes a significant improvement over current boltguns (against multi-Wound models anyway). That was the whole point. I'm not sure why you think I'm being blind or duplicitous here.

Against the following profiles, here's how the math shakes out.
MEQ are assumed to have Armor of Contempt, but the T7 and T8 profiles are NOT.



Notice how the Shoota got buffed moderately against GEQ and MEQ at full range. If you got Dakka Range (which you can get from Deepstrike if you're Bad Moons) you're actually LOSING damage.
The only place you do better consistently is against T8 targets, since the reduced Strength is irrelevant. But so is the damage dealt-it would take over 1,000 shots at BS 5+ S3 or S4 AP0 D1 to kill a Knight.

But the Bolter? It's just better.
Against GEQ? Little bit better.
MEQ? Miles better.
Anything bigger? Triple the damage, generally.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

First of all, I really don't think the shoota suggestion was a nerf. You used the maximum number of shots in your comparison (50% more damage than Dakka 3/2 would have done at beyond half range) while conveniently ignoring that Assault 4 would mean 4 shots regardless of range and the ability to fire after advancing... and after all that, 0.02 less damage to MEQ? Sorry, but your response just seems outright melodramatic (and misrepresentative). Btw, against GEQ (my actual chosen faction, for the record) the revised shoota would be equal or better at every range.

Welcome to discussing anything on here with Semper around - at some point it's going to get twisted into a "how Orks have been done dirty", with examples that don't necessarily correspond to what is being discussed...

That's it. I'm sick of all this "bolter with AP-1" bs that's going on in 40k right now. Gauss flayers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine gauss flayer on a tomb world for 100 energy (that's about 1,21 gigawatts) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce ferrocrete bunkers with my gauss flayer.

Necron Crypteks spend years working on a single gauss flayer and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest firearms known to the galaxy.

Gauss flayers are thrice as long as Space Marine bolters and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a bolter can penetrate, a gauss flayer can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a gauss flayer could easily bisect a knight-class titan with a simple volley.

Ever wonder why Tyranids never bother conquering Tomb Worlds? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Necron Warriors and their gauss flayers of destruction. Even in the devastation of Baal, Tyranid Warriors targeted the Necron Warriors with the gauss flayers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Gauss flayers are simply the best firearm that the galaxy has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 40k system. Here is the stat block I propose for gauss flayers:

RF1 24" S4 AP-2 D1 An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target.

 vict0988 wrote:
That's it. I'm sick of all this "bolter with AP-1" bs that's going on in 40k right now. Gauss flayers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine gauss flayer on a tomb world for 100 energy (that's about 1,21 gigawatts) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce ferrocrete bunkers with my gauss flayer.

Necron Crypteks spend years working on a single gauss flayer and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest firearms known to the galaxy.

Gauss flayers are thrice as long as Space Marine bolters and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a bolter can penetrate, a gauss flayer can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a gauss flayer could easily bisect a knight-class titan with a simple volley.

Ever wonder why Tyranids never bother conquering Tomb Worlds? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Necron Warriors and their gauss flayers of destruction. Even in the devastation of Baal, Tyranid Warriors targeted the Necron Warriors with the gauss flayers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Gauss flayers are simply the best firearm that the galaxy has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 40k system. Here is the stat block I propose for gauss flayers:

RF1 24" S4 AP-2 D1 An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target.

I like that you go through all the reasons it should be strong, and then suggest something that still isn't that strong lmao. Maybe instead of automatically wounds, just does a flat 1 MW and ends the process there.

Considering the power creep trajectory we are on since marines 2.0 with a brief respite in early 9th only to got drukhari into custodes and Tau and now Harlequins and soonish Tyranids, i wouldn't be surprised if the gauss gimmick comes back with a mortal wound shenanigan.

First of all, I think some people are forgetting which thread we're in. Yes, the bolter would be better. That's the point. And in a way which seems characteristic and reasonable to me (pending points adjustments ofc).

Also, some interesting maths (correct me if I'm wrong):

Current boltgun:
0.59 wounds vs GEQ.
0.37 wounds vs Boyz. 0.31 wounds with 6+ FNP.
0.22 wounds vs MEQ.
0.11 wounds vs TEQ.
0.15 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.07 wounds vs T8 3+.

Current boltgun with +1 AP doctrine:
0.74 wounds vs GEQ.
0.44 wounds vs Boyz, 0.37 wounds with 6+ FNP.
0.22 wounds vs MEQ, 0.33 wounds without AoC.
0.11 wounds vs TEQ, 0.22 wounds without AoC.
0.22 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.11 wounds vs T8 3+.

New boltgun (S4 AP1 Damage D3):
0.74 wounds vs GEQ (same as above).
0.44 wounds vs Boyz (same as above). 0.43 wounds with 6+ FNP (16% higher than above).
0.37 wounds vs MEQ, 0.55 wounds without AoC (67% higher than above). This becomes 100% higher than above if Damage is 2 rather than D3 (all other comparisons remain identical).
0.22 wounds vs TEQ, 0.44 wounds without AoC (100% higher than above).
0.44 wounds vs T7 3+ (100% higher than above).
0.22 wounds vs T8 3+ (100% higher than above).

So not quite the buff that people are making it out to be (still a big buff).

And anyone claiming the new shoota (or big shoota) would constitute a nerf overall is wrong, or at least seriously cherrypicking, because:

Current shoota (18"):
0.3 wounds vs GEQ.
0.11 wounds vs MEQ.
0.06 wounds vs TEQ.
0.07 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.04 wounds vs T8 3+.

Current shoota (9"):
0.44 wounds vs GEQ.
0.16 wounds vs MEQ.
0.08 wounds vs TEQ.
0.11 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.06 wounds vs T8 3+.

New shoota:
0.44 wounds vs GEQ (50% higher than current shoota at 18", equal at 9").
0.15 wounds vs MEQ (33% higher than current shoota at 18", 11% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs TEQ (33% higher than current shoota at 18", 11% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs T7 3+ (equal to current shoota at 18", 33% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs T8 3+ (100% higher than current shoota at 18", 33% higher at 9").

If we average out the current shoota's 9" and 18" profiles:
0.37 wounds vs GEQ (the new shoota is 20% better).
0.14 wounds vs MEQ (the new shoota is 7% better).
0.07 wounds vs TEQ (the new shoota is 7% better).
0.09 wounds vs T7 3+ (the new shoota is 20% worse).
0.05 wounds vs T8 3+ (the new shoota is 60% better).

Plus it could fire after advancing...

And if anybody is curious about the big shoota change I suggested, vs the avg of the current big shoota's 18" and 36" profiles:
50% better vs GEQ than the current big shoota.
12.5% better vs MEQ than the current big shoota.
12.5% better vs TEQ than the current big shoota.
50% better vs T7 3+ than the current big shoota.
25% worse vs T8 3+than the current big shoota.

And that could fire after advancing as well.

These weapons would also be better in a way that seems characteristic and reasonable to me.

As a CSM and Ork player i am just going to say it:

stop it with suggestions to increase Bolters (and all types of marines) power for that matter, the game adapts to them permanently due to the (C)SM baseline population being the most common and played factions by miles, every change to them WILL have consequences for other factions and actively further facilitates the armsrace / powercreep that right now and since late 5th made this game often horrific to play with certain factions.

Its the same issue as to why now suddendly every stupid baseline infantry weapon has some form of AP, including Marines, especially other marines, because GW couldn't let good enough be good (and needed to sell you your army again this time with more specialists and no options) and HAD to throw out marines 2.0 sorry, primaris, and look where that got us.
And when primaris didn't cut it anymore, well, throw out marine 2.0 and their doctrines and supplements out and the reaction to that was more powercreep and more and more and more.

IF you really want to "Fix" the bloody boltgun then its time to scale far back, drop 2w marines of anykind, drop AP-1 boltrifles (indeed just throw out all the primaris boltweapons period) and by extentsion do the same for all the other factions. It would've been good enough for marines with the new AP system, because it would've disolved the AP3 or better or bust syndrome that pre8th 40k had.

and as an aside, giving ork shootas assault back is not a buff, it's what it always has been and should've been.

I honestly just think always autowounding on 6s not being a thing would make bolters actually feel powerful. Lasguns doing nothing against T7+ but bolters still being able to wound, etc.

 vict0988 wrote:
That's it. I'm sick of all this "bolter with AP-1" bs that's going on in 40k right now. Gauss flayers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine gauss flayer on a tomb world for 100 energy (that's about 1,21 gigawatts) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce ferrocrete bunkers with my gauss flayer.

Necron Crypteks spend years working on a single gauss flayer and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest firearms known to the galaxy.

Gauss flayers are thrice as long as Space Marine bolters and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a bolter can penetrate, a gauss flayer can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a gauss flayer could easily bisect a knight-class titan with a simple volley.

Ever wonder why Tyranids never bother conquering Tomb Worlds? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Necron Warriors and their gauss flayers of destruction. Even in the devastation of Baal, Tyranid Warriors targeted the Necron Warriors with the gauss flayers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Gauss flayers are simply the best firearm that the galaxy has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 40k system. Here is the stat block I propose for gauss flayers:

RF1 24" S4 AP-2 D1 An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target.

Now, that's a meme I haven't heard in a long time. A long time...

Bolters are fine. We don't need the basic infantry weapon on the most common faction in the game to do that much heavy lifting.

Fix lascannons. Plasma should do MW instead of slay user. Bespoke vehicle weapons should be better or the vehicles cheaper.

Boom. Done.

Great. There is one slight problem with this. All the marine units that are build around bolters, who have no special weapons. Marines that don't get plasma or get a limited number of vehicles accesible to them. On top of that, if basic weapons can't be powerful for troop options, then why are ad mecha, tau or eldar ones just that?

Karol wrote:
Great. There is one slight problem with this. All the marine units that are build around bolters, who have no special weapons. Marines that don't get plasma or get a limited number of vehicles accesible to them. On top of that, if basic weapons can't be powerful for troop options, then why are ad mecha, tau or eldar ones just that?

You really wonder why T'au troops have superior guns?
Because that's all that they have. Get into CC with them and they... fold. Most T'au players in CC just offer to take their models off the board when engaged in melee.

Really? Okey then GK only have storm bolters, the heavy weapons that GW gave them are so bad, it is a downgrade you pay points for , if you take them. Where aren't the blessed ammo SB GK have the same kind of a blessed ammo SB SoB have?

Plus Tau squad weapons are much better then the bolter, and on top of that they exist in an army that has crissis suits, broad sides etc And shoting , specially out of LoS shoting beats out melee every time, so we can't even say that power armoured armies are balanced vs tau by virtue of having better melee. Because there is no melee, if a tau kills or cripples your units before you reach it.

How about Ad mecha guns?

Karol wrote:
Great. There is one slight problem with this. All the marine units that are build around bolters, who have no special weapons. Marines that don't get plasma or get a limited number of vehicles accesible to them. On top of that, if basic weapons can't be powerful for troop options, then why are ad mecha, tau or eldar ones just that?

But that's the point - the Eldar and Admech weapons need to be rolled back, rather than just endlessly buffing other weapons to their level.

Karol wrote:
Really? Okey then GK only have storm bolters, the heavy weapons that GW gave them are so bad, it is a downgrade you pay points for , if you take them.

This seems a little hyperbolical.

The Incinerator is a Heavy Flamer with S6. Hardly a bad weapon, especially when most infantry can only get a regular flamer at best.

The Psilencer is a Heavy version of the storm bolter with +2 shots and AP-1. Nothing amazing but hardly terrible. Though it does seem like one of those weapons that lost something during the transition from 7th.

Lastly, the Psycannon is a Heavy Bolter with +2S (or an Autocannon with an extra shot, depending on how you want to look at it). Seems fine, in all honestly.


The only issues I'm really seeing is that they get -1 to hit if they move (but then so do a lot of infantry, it's kinda the point of Heavy weapons) and that AP-1 is far less effective after the new balance patch. However, the latter is what happens when Marine players complain that their units aren't tough enough - they get tougher at the expense of, among other things, their own weapons.

Karol wrote:
Really? Okey then GK only have storm bolters, the heavy weapons that GW gave them are so bad, it is a downgrade you pay points for , if you take them. Where aren't the blessed ammo SB GK have the same kind of a blessed ammo SB SoB have?

Plus Tau squad weapons are much better then the bolter, and on top of that they exist in an army that has crissis suits, broad sides etc And shoting , specially out of LoS shoting beats out melee every time, so we can't even say that power armoured armies are balanced vs tau by virtue of having better melee. Because there is no melee, if a tau kills or cripples your units before you reach it.

How about Ad mecha guns?

Out of LOS shooting is better then melee?
HAVE YOU READ THE F** **G BALANCE DATASLATE???

Karol wrote:
Great. There is one slight problem with this. All the marine units that are build around bolters, who have no special weapons. Marines that don't get plasma or get a limited number of vehicles accesible to them. On top of that, if basic weapons can't be powerful for troop options, then why are ad mecha, tau or eldar ones just that?

I want you to list for me the marine units built around bolters that can only take regular bolters and nothing else.

Marines in 7th: Our Marines aren't tough enough, they just die to everyones AP3 weapons that for some reason just seem to be everywhere! (Waves to Hellchickens, Rokkitz and Plasma spam)

GW: Don't worry, introducing 2 WOUND Marines!

Marines in 8th: Our Marines aren't tough enough, we don't get any benefit from cover, we hate this!

GW: Don't worry, introducing new cover rules which adds +1 armor and which screws over low armor factions but which benefits Marines basically above all others!

Marines in 9th: Our Marines aren't tough enough, they just die to everyones AP- (1-3) weapons which for some reason seem to be everywhere...almost like people are building lists based around playing against T4 3+ since its without a doubt the most common defensive profile in the entire game.....

GW: Don't worry, Introducing ARMOR OF CONTEMPT!

Marines in 9th: Our bolt guns aren't doing enough dmg to other Marines and other factions since they all got buffed thanks to the power curve of the game going up dramatically thanks to the largest factions in the game receiving huge durability boosts.

GW: Don't worry, Introducing (Insert new GW item when it arrives).





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:

Karol wrote:
Great. There is one slight problem with this. All the marine units that are build around bolters, who have no special weapons. Marines that don't get plasma or get a limited number of vehicles accesible to them. On top of that, if basic weapons can't be powerful for troop options, then why are ad mecha, tau or eldar ones just that?

You really wonder why T'au troops have superior guns?
Because that's all that they have. Get into CC with them and they... fold. Most T'au players in CC just offer to take their models off the board when engaged in melee.

I just had this happen very recently at a tournament, once the Tau player runs out of CP to use his guns in CC, especially the strat that turns his rifle into a Pistol 2 weapon which gives him 3 shots in CC....once that part is over they just say "yep, you win".

@Semper Mortis 2 wound marines came after +1 Sv from cover.