Another thread got onto the subject of bolters so I thought I'd relocate the conversation.

I don't like bolters. Here's why:
1. rapid fire prevents you from charging, meaning you can't get the most out of your marines.
2. even massive quantities of bolters don't consistently kill the most threatening things in the game: thunderwolves plague marines blood angels w/sanguinary priests blood crushers etc. About a year ago I dumped a *company* worth of rapid firing bolters into 10 fortuned wraith lord. did not kill 1. not even 1. just the other week I pulled out an army that was just a ton of chaos space marines with bolters and went up against a space wolf army loaded up with thunder wolves. I rapid fired a squad with 6 plasmaguns 6 flame throwers and 28 bolters. Because of wound allocation not even one died.
3. Bolters don't handle masses of poor infantry very well either, because it's not hard to keep them in cover and use their 4+ save to keep the ap 5 from hurting too much.
4. They cant hurt tanks.

So basically plasma weapons are better for killing heavy infantry and monsters, flame throwers for killing masses of light infantry, and melta weapons for killing tanks.
AF

Would you rather have your marines equipped with lasguns?

Bolters are fine. They're not designed to be anti-everything. They kill guardsmen and unprotected tyranids. If they killed anything else super effectively, they wouldn't be the 'standard' weapon of the astartes, and why would you want anything else?

I have to agree with Xcaliber. I mean, Boltguns are a hell of a lot better than lasguns. Guardsmen without Carapace Armor, Orks without 'Eavy Armor and Tyranid Gaunts will all fall to the hail of Bolters. AP 5 does come in handy against mob armies. Tactical Squads are meant to be jacks-of-all-trades, masters-of-none. Theyre tough and resilient with a 3+ save. I dont use a lot of Tacti Squads when i play, just enough to fill up the two Troop Choices. I find they are better for soaking up shots for the Elites of Fast Attack Units giving the Elites and FA an oppurtunity to engage in close combat.

What type of SM Army do you play and what tactics do you use?

In reverse order...

4.) they're a small arm for goodness sake!

3.) Nothing that doesnt' ignore cover saves is good at digging enemy infantry out of cover. That's what flamer upgrades and assault are for.

2.) Once again, they're small arms. They are not designed to take out the enemy's biggest and scariest. Furthermore, anything with power armor is designed to be good against small arms, regardless of the small arm in question.

1.) Yes, you can only either rapid fire OR charge, and of course if they were assault weapons, they'd be better. That said, you get them for free. The only way to give marines assault weapons would be to make them even more expensive than they already are. Go play eldar or orks if assault small arms are a make-or-break for you.

I think the reason why you don't like bolters is because they don't live up to your expectations. The reason this is true is because you have absurd expectations, not because bolters themselves are somehow bad.

X
I'd rather have plasma melta flamer. I run msu so I dont have to take more bolters than absolutely necessary.

If I could have the gaurdsman with the lasgun yes. 3 guardsmen with lasguns are waaayyyy better than 1 space marine with a bolter, but they cost about the same.

Sang
assume the guardsmen are in cover. I agree take two troop choices and be done, unless there's something objectively good there you want.

I play a vulkan/bike army. My tactic is to use my mobility to try to break down a 2000 vs 2000 point battles into several 2000 vs 500 or 1000 point battles. If I can concentrate my entire force against small portions of theirs and take them out 1 at a time I have a really good chance of winning. I use twin linked meltas and flame throwers to do my killing, but also have a squad of assault terminators and a command squad kitted out for close combat.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ail
I expect to kill the stuff I'm shooting at. That's all.
AF

I'm not sure if this should be Tactics or in Discussions.
______________
That aside.

Could it be that the expectation for the Special Weapons to perform outweight the expections for the standard small arms?

1. If you are driving up from a rhino and disembarking from it, you can't charge anyway, so win/win.
If you are on a stable platform (ie Bikes) then you are not hindered.
There are fights were you don't want to charge in and causeing as much damage as you can before combat is met is more desirable.

2. But the role of the bolter is not to engage those list of things and wreck them. They are there to support/suppliment the weaponry equipped by the special/heavy weapon trooper.

The WG example is far too extreme as that is not their role and you don't waste shots like that. I know they can kill x number of fortuned WraithGUARD but an example of their worst match up is not useful to your arguement.

In addition the averages would dictate it takes roughly 81 bolter shots to down a WG, which translates to 40 Marines...it's alot, but that's not what bolters are for you have to agree...and I will admit averages are just averages.

You 'company' should have killed roughly 4...so you rolled very poorly... /shrug.

As for the Thunderwolf example, I'm sure that happens alot, but how did he distribute them... it's quite lucky to make the saves the needs to only end with 1 wound on each person as allocation can be quite fickle.

3. Yes, there is alot of cover these days, but it's not always the case. In addition, you throw enough and they die, this is the tenant the Orks generally live by and is not that different to Marines who bring more quality than the quantity the orks bring.

4. Bolters can hurt tanks, though that is not their role.
Things they can hurt AV 10...there are plenty of AV 10 targets.

Many Rear armor, Some side armor(chimera chasis), Vypers, Warwalkers, Land Speeders, DE Raiders, trukks, etc.

So basically plasma weapons are better for killing heavy infantry and monsters, flame throwers for killing masses of light infantry, and melta weapons for killing tanks.

I agree... those are the most general descriptions of each weapon.

Plasma weapons are also decent light/medium tank hunters too... but there are some issues:
-gets hot, not everybody wants to deal with it.
-it's rapid fire too...which in your book sucks.
-it's the most expensive option (wrt Marines/CSM).

Flamer Weapons are great, but are shorter range and require superior positioning to get the most out of it. In a way you can say being at the 9"-12" the bolters are infinitely superior to the flamer.

Meltas: yup, and though one less shot, they hurt MC's well enough and also threaten T4 IC's should they (unlikely) be running around alone.

AF, it's not so much 'liking' bolters... it just... is. It's standard equipement. You can't expect too much from it...while on the flip side, it does alot already.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If I could have the gaurdsman with the lasgun yes. 3 guardsmen with lasguns are waaayyyy better than 1 space marine with a bolter, but they cost about the same.
AF

I have a bone to pick with that, no, not the queer little sign-off that NO ONE should have, the guardsmen/space marine comparison.

Three lasguns fire at space marine... three shots hit... one wounds... 1/3 chance to kill him.

One bolter fires at guardsmen... 1.3333% hit just under one percent wounds... leaving a dead guardsmen.

Also, in CC you're going to win. In shooting you should win.

IG aren't feared for the normal guardsmen, they're feared for their big guns.

Plasma/melta is negated half the time too if your see cover saves while in rapid fire range as well.

Bolters don't due too bad when they hit on 3s and wound most all basic infantry on 2+ through 4+. Its all about making the other guy throw saves.

Yeah they have a harder time against T5 units because now they need 5s to wound. But they can wound them.

You can't say they suck because you shot at T4 models with FNP, because at that point FNP makeseven high powered guns seem pointless. Autocannons, ion cannons, dakkaguns, loota guns, scatterlasers, etc.

To get the most out of your bolters, you need to concentrate shooting at things they can actually hurt. However sometimes you just need to make the other guy roll dice, bolters work for that too.

Sanct
yes I use bolters. when there's no alternative.obviously they're better than nothing.

my point about wraithguard is that 100 bolters couldnt kill 1. 10 plasmaguns would have killed them all. It's an extreme example yes but I think illustrative. Bolters are supposed to rely on weight of fire to make up for lower stats. But it doesnt work. The number of bolters you have to get on a single really tough target to reliably kill it is more or less unattainable w/in a 2000 point battle.

About the space wolves. look at it like this. well over 1000 points of marines shot up 500 points (about) of thuder wolves. Not only did the marines fail to kill them, they got wiped the next turn in assault. If you cant kill 500 points of the other guys stuff with 1000 of yours you're going to lose. strait up.

yes I understand it's standard equipment. You cant expect too much from it. As much as possible I think its a good idea to increase the ratio of weapons that kill alot to weapons only kill a little in your force. But maybe I'm being dogmatic and narrow thinking like that.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor
the guardsmen can receive orders that make their shooting more effective. the space marine can't.

what's queer about my sign off?
AF

Comparing bolters to plasma, melta, flamers is pointless. Of course bolters are worse than them, that's why you have to pay points for them and can only get them in limited quantities. A 10 man squad of plasma marines? Hell yeah!

You have to compare them to equivilant basic weaponry such as lasguns, pulse rifles, fleshborers, gauss flayers, etc. and in those comparisons, while they aren't the best, they aren't far from it.

I like a bitta plohzma

AbaddonFidelis wrote:my point about wraithguard is that 100 bolters couldnt kill 1. 10 plasmaguns would have killed them all. It's an extreme example yes but I think illustrative.

I'll one-up you. A single 125 point guard basilisk can wipe out that entire squad in a single shot anywhere on the table, no cover.

This is because a basilisk is a HEAVY SUPPORT CHOICE. HS slots are for doing lots and lots of damage. Troops slots are for taking and holding objectives. Once again, you're only looking at the damage potential and then comparing small arms to big guns. This is silly.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Bolters are supposed to rely on weight of fire to make up for lower stats. But it doesnt work. The number of bolters you have to get on a single really tough target to reliably kill it is more or less unattainable w/in a 2000 point battle.

Once again, you're taking the entire group of space marines, and ignoring everything except a couple of the stats in one of their weapons. What do you think is really being gained by this?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:yes I understand it's standard equipment. You cant expect too much from it. As much as possible I think its a good idea to increase the ratio of weapons that kill alot to weapons only kill a little in your force.

Yes, and in a perfect world, plasma guns would be the small-arms of my guardsmen instead of lasguns. And they'd still cost the same too...

Yes, you had a poor bit of rolling for your bolters 100 bolter shots *should* kill 1.23 fortuned wraithguard so you aren't even rolling that poorly ( 100 *2/3 *1/6 *1/3 *1/3) so even if ALL 100 marines were withing 12" (highly doubtful) you would have killed two, maybe 3. Unless you were shooting a fortuned wraithlord like youe OP said, in which case I'll LOL.

My question to you is, what are you doing with 100 stock marines on the table?

my point about wraithguard is that 100 bolters couldnt kill 1.

-And sadly, there's no other responce than what I've already said:
They should have killed something, but you rolled poorly because that's dice. In addition, they shouldn't be shooting/relying on it in the first place. I can understand a test of bolter shooting, but that goes back to the whole "it's dice" and something "on average" should have happened.

You can't expect so much from something that is essentially free...everyone is happy that it's not a lasgun apparently in this thread .

With poor dice, 10 plasma guns could have killed none and killed all the carriers... Remember the fortuned squad should have had Conceal and fortune combo, which is enough to deny alot with some luck and poor luck on the shooters' side.

As for the Space Wolves.
I'm no stranger to that kind of force concentration...gak happens sometimes.
I had 720 points of bikers that 'just' manage to down 10 necron warriors (180 points)...luckly for me, they were too far from other Necrons so truely died.

It is just part of the game...I encounter this all the time with my bikers because it is just one way it 'works'.

I wouldn't say it's narrow thinking...it might just be the SMurf Superiority Flu that goes around .
Anyway, I'm surprised... I've had great results with the mass accurate fire from my bikers...something is going on that I'm not seeing/getting/inferring/missing that I can't put a finger on why they perform so badly for you.

Ailaros wrote:
Yes, and in a perfect world, plasma guns would be the small-arms of my guardsmen instead of lasguns. And they'd still cost the same too...

And not get hot.

And I want a Pony and an Icecream.


More seriously, I, personally, do like bolters. Very much so.

Bafflingly, you don't understand why a bolter isn't as good at everything as special weapons are at one thing, but I have a question for you:

What do you think is the solution to this 'problem'?

Ad if you say 'All Marines get Plasmaguns' I'll accept that, on condition that all my Battle Sisters can have Heavy Flamers and we'll see what's what.

Just looking at math hammer. It takes nine bolter shots to drop 1 marine. Or rapid firing it takes 160 points of marines to kill 16 points.

1000 points of marines will never kill 500 points of marines in a single shooting phase. Never mind anything else in the game that requires more than a 4+ to wound or has a reroll on armor saves.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Tacs have bolter pistols as well (assault weapons), so I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here. They also have a 3+ save, BS4, along with frag and krak grenades...

You can complain that your 16-18 point tac marines don't put out enough damage, but it certainly raises questions about what you are shooting at.

Bolters are just fine at what they do, and as suggested before, I am not even sure what a fix would look like. Tacs are medium infantry, and they certainly act like it. They are relatively tough, and do quite a good job for their cost. They aren't amazing, but you can gear them a dozen different ways to deal with nearly anything you will come across. If you want an end all troops unit, you're not going to get it. Everything has a weakness, and tacs are no exception. If you feel they do not suit your needs, switching them out for scouts is certainly an option. AP3- weapons are in abundance much of the time, and in a gaming environment chock-a-block with them, you'll probably be better off with scouts. That is not always true, but it certainly can be.

In the case of defender guardians with their 2 shot assault weapons, they can't fire past 12" AT ALL, have NO grenades, are T3 with 5+ armor, and don't have a whole going for them besides being kinda cheap. It is tit-for-tat, and small arms for troops units are almost always supplementary to their existing strengths.

Don't use bolters if you can't choose/find the right targets to use them on. You can trade the Sarges' bolter for a PW, gaining an extra attack in the process, 4 PW attacks on the charge is nothing to sniff at, especially when the squad can use their pistols to drop a wound or two on the unit you are charging. Without FoF, tacs will always have a limited range of attack, no reason to pretend like bolters make them worthless... unless I am missing the point of this thread entirely.

"Hey guys, my default Troop choice weapon can't insta-kill one of the hardest to kill Elite infantry choices with one of the most obnoxious psyker powers in the game in one round."

Bolters are awesome. If you don't like them, play IG for a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on the topic of IG orders supposively making up for their terrible guns, I submit this:

160 points of Infantry (30 guys) with 3 shots (rapid fire, FRFSRF)

BS 3 means half of them are gone, 45 shots hit, 5+ to hit SM means 14 wounds. 3+ armor save means 5 wounds.

160 points of SM (10 guys) with 2 shots (rapid fire) into 30 guardsmen

BS 4, 13 hit, 9 wounds, no armor save; so you better hope you're in cover.

SM loses half their guys, IG loses about 1/3. I suppose if you look at it that way (i.e. in a vacuumn), IG orders make up for lasguns, when they go off. A better question is why are you letting your SM get so close to a giant blob of IG that they can get away with doing something like that?

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If I could have the gaurdsman with the lasgun yes. 3 guardsmen with lasguns are waaayyyy better than 1 space marine with a bolter, but they cost about the same.
AF

I have a bone to pick with that, no, not the queer little sign-off that NO ONE should have, the guardsmen/space marine comparison.

Three lasguns fire at space marine... three shots hit... one wounds... 1/3 chance to kill him.

One bolter fires at guardsmen... 1.3333% hit just under one percent wounds... leaving a dead guardsmen.

Did you really just compare Space Marines shooting Guardsmen to Guardsmen shooting Space Marines?

The point he was making was that 6 lasgun shots at BS3 are better than 2 bolter shots at BS4. Those 6 lasgun shots are going to kill 0.33 marines, while those 2 bolter shots are going to kill 0.22 marines.

---------------------

I agree that bolters suck. In my opinion they should Strength 5, leaving the Bolt Pistol at Strength 4. Very rarely is it worth standing and rapid firing instead of pistoling and charging, and S5 could help with that. Heavy Bolters are also terrible right now, and would be bumped up to S6 and an extra shot. Even then it still kills less than one marine, and the bolters kill 1/4th a marine each.

The cover system also hurts bolters because standing and shooting while in cover does nothing for them. They still only get their 3+ save against small arms fire. Fantasy's shooting is much better and far more tactical, yet it is in a game setting where ranged weaponry wouldnt be as strong. In fantasy you get "to hit" modifiers based on shooting into cover, whether you moved, etc. .

Shooting and cover need a complete overhaul in my opinion, but 40k is about being very fast and simple before being tactical.

Me and my battlecannons are both surprisingly okay with the idea of cover being less prevalent.

I really think that bolter can be good if you load them with the right stuff
Sterguard do alright, don't they, and they only have bolters!(Yes ok it had another weapon stapled to the top but it's still essentially a bolter!!!)

Bolters need to be Assault 2, 18". Space Marines are meant to be storm troopers, shock troops: they all need assault weapons.

If you're looking for a high mobility army, are you sure that Space Marines are the army for you? If you are complaining that the standard weapon for your army are ineffective, then maybe you should be looking into another army, maybe Eldar?

Night Lords wrote:I agree that bolters suck. In my opinion they should Strength 5, leaving the Bolt Pistol at Strength 4. Very rarely is it worth standing and rapid firing instead of pistoling and charging, and S5 could help with that.

It is worth it when you need to be within 6" to charge... and when the unit in question has a 3+ armor save, two types of grenades, and access to an amazingly diverse set of additional weaponry... oh, and really cheap transports too.

If you can't make use of tacs, DO NOT USE THEM. They aren't amazing, but their weakness is not their small arms, it is in the fact that AP3 weaponry is usually on the field. At which point they can hop into really cheap transports, pop smoke for a turn, and do what most troops are meant to; meaning they aren't meant to be end all units. No unit in any codex is.

Heavy Bolters are also terrible right now, and would be bumped up to S6 and an extra shot. Even then it still kills less than one marine, and the bolters kill 1/4th a marine each.

They are free for tacs... You can get a pred with heavy bolter sponsons for 85 points... Or a dev squad firing 12 shots for 150 points.
What you are saying is that Smurfs need a S6, 4 shot weapon that fires at 36"... for free, or next to nothing in cost. What?

Seriously, that would be completely ridiculous. BS4 will make that no less than completely OP. If you were to add an additional cost to that buff, it could be a possibility. Say... 10-15 points extra per HB, and even that would be mildly ridiculous. Where is this idea that every weapon should be put in a vacuum against marines coming from? Does everyone play Smurf against Smurf these days?

The cover system also hurts bolters because standing and shooting while in cover does nothing for them. They still only get their 3+ save against small arms fire. Fantasy's shooting is much better and far more tactical, yet it is in a game setting where ranged weaponry wouldnt be as strong. In fantasy you get "to hit" modifiers based on shooting into cover, whether you moved, etc. .

Shooting and cover need a complete overhaul in my opinion, but 40k is about being very fast and simple before being tactical.

You realize that every armies set of small arms have to deal with that exact same problem, most of the time without a 3+ and all of the other goodies, right?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Bolters need to be Assault 2, 18". Space Marines are meant to be storm troopers, shock troops: they all need assault weapons.

Sigh.

Like SoloFalcon1138 already said, it really sounds like you need to find a different army. Smurfs aren't for everyone, myself included. There are SO MANY codices to choose from, but I understand if you are not interested in putting together an entirely new army... GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!1! Smurfs can be easily used as one of the other SM spinoff dexes, and in many cases, with absolutely no conversion needed at all.

I like how the OP complains that units that are meant to be hard to take down, are hard to take down. I wonder if he complains that water is wet?

Tell me, in the real world if you need to screw something in and you only have a hammer what do you do? The answer is you get off your butt, go to the store and buy a screwdriver. Use the right tool for the right job.

Your problem is that you are running bike squads in minimal numbers. So you have an overhead associated with your bolters to begin with that normal tac marines do not see. Your limited numbers mean that you are trading the effectivness of "massed firepower" for the ability to take more special weapons, in other words 5-10 bolters from a squad is NOT MASSED FIRE.

Your underlying argument for effectivness only tries to say that Tac marines are overpriced, which given their flexibility is untrue. I won't throw my hat in with the others who only prove how well other weapons scale in comparison to bolters because their logic is flawed to. So like others have asked what is your actual issue?

My point here is that if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should. You should build an army to maximize the number of special weapons your squads carry because special weapons are much better at killing things than special weapons.

Well....

Night Lord
thanks. The 3 guardsmen are obviously the better shots. Why is it that people dont see that? Who here knows arithmetic?

Sanct
ok lets say they kill 1. they didnt but lets pretend they had. is that to you an acceptable result of applying a company's worth of bolters?

the thing with the space wolves wasnt a fluke. If I ran that game again I expect more or less the same thing to happen. It was a result of relying on weight of fire rather than special weapons. If you have to fight against stuff thats tough you have to bring stuff that's killy. ie not bolters.

AF

Wrexasaur wrote:

Night Lords wrote:I agree that bolters suck. In my opinion they should Strength 5, leaving the Bolt Pistol at Strength 4. Very rarely is it worth standing and rapid firing instead of pistoling and charging, and S5 could help with that.

It is worth it when you need to be within 6" to charge... and when the unit in question has a 3+ armor save, two types of grenades, and access to an amazingly diverse set of additional weaponry... oh, and really cheap transports too.

If you can't make use of tacs, DO NOT USE THEM. They aren't amazing, but their weakness is not their small arms, it is in the fact that AP3 weaponry is usually on the field. At which point they can hop into really cheap transports, pop smoke for a turn, and do what most troops are meant to; meaning they aren't meant to be end all units. No unit in any codex is.

You didnt address the fact that bolters suck. Regardless, tacticals suck, and its not because of AP3 weaponry, it is because they have 1 base attack, 1 special weapon and bolters... which again, are terrible.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Heavy Bolters are also terrible right now, and would be bumped up to S6 and an extra shot. Even then it still kills less than one marine, and the bolters kill 1/4th a marine each.

They are free for tacs... You can get a pred with heavy bolter sponsons for 85 points... Or a dev squad firing 12 shots for 150 points.
What you are saying is that Smurfs need a S6, 4 shot weapon that fires at 36"... for free, or next to nothing in cost. What?

"Seriously, that would be completely ridiculous. BS4 will make that no less than completely OP. If you were to add an additional cost to that buff, it could be a possibility. Say... 10-15 points extra per HB, and even that would be mildly ridiculous. Where is this idea that every weapon should be put in a vacuum against marines coming from? Does everyone play Smurf against Smurf these days?"

They wouldn't be OP at all. Currently they are a complete waste and no one ever takes them. They are completely useless in the current state. Oh no, a tactical squad can shoot a single gun across the board at my gaunts/orks, and still manage to only kill two (or one if I have cover). It's a heavy machine gun and kills 2 of the weakest units in the game...spending an additional 10-15 points like you said would be completely laughable. It would get used less than never.

Yes, Devastators would get 16 shots (4*4 is 16) and kill eight 5 or 6 point models. They still only kill 2.3 marines. Nobody uses devastators as is. Now mathhammering it out, they should be even stronger as they still suck with my suggestion. Maybe they should get 5 shots each.

Eldar get Warwalkers with 12 shots each for less than that, and can take 3 per slot. Dakka Predators might actually be worth taking in that case, but as is the Combi Pred is far better and more versatile.

Oh, and I play Tyranids, so all these suggestions would actually be worse for myself.

Wrexasaur wrote:

The cover system also hurts bolters because standing and shooting while in cover does nothing for them. They still only get their 3+ save against small arms fire. Fantasy's shooting is much better and far more tactical, yet it is in a game setting where ranged weaponry wouldnt be as strong. In fantasy you get "to hit" modifiers based on shooting into cover, whether you moved, etc. .

Shooting and cover need a complete overhaul in my opinion, but 40k is about being very fast and simple before being tactical.

You realize that every armies set of small arms have to deal with that exact same problem, most of the time without a 3+ and all of the other goodies, right?

...did you even read what I wrote? Tyranids, Orks, Guardsmen, Daemons etc get a 4+ save instead of the 5+/6+ they normally get. They can even go to ground for a 3+. Space Marines, on the other hand, get absolutely no advantage to their regular save for being in cover, even if they go to ground.

No advantage that is except to counter the AP 3 weapons that you insist are always there. News flash the SM's on the tabletop are not the same guys in the Black Library novles.

I agree with you on one critical note, the cover system in 5th edition is WAY too generous, and this is coming from a Guard player :p . I think that a fire fight should be quick and decisive, 4+ MAX cover save and unless it's a structure built out of nano-hardend carbon steel for the purpose of stopping really big guns, then the most something should offer infantry is a 5+ cover save.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Night Lord
thanks. The 3 guardsmen are obviously the better shots. Why is it that people dont see that? Who here knows arithmetic?

Guardsmen hit on 4's and wound on 5's with their lasguns

Space Marines hit on 3's and wound on 4's with their bolters.

I donno, it seems like the space marines have an advantage to me.

A boltgun is a standard issue weapon, it is there to be upgraded, you should have some special weapons troopers. If the boltgun got an upgrade, space marines would become more expensive than they are.

Of course, if you want assault 2 boltguns, you could always run Grey Knights

Ailaros wrote:In reverse order...

4.) they're a small arm for goodness sake!
2.) Once again, they're small arms. They are not designed to take out the enemy's biggest and scariest. Furthermore, anything with power armor is designed to be good against small arms, regardless of the small arm in question.

I think the reason why you don't like bolters is because they don't live up to your expectations. The reason this is true is because you have absurd expectations, not because bolters themselves are somehow bad.

Ailaros wins. Politely too- the moment I read this thread, I must admit, i sprayed some coffee on my screen in a burst of laughter as I read some guy on the net complain his standard weapon for his troops cannot hurt tanks

AbaddonFidelis wrote:X
I'd rather have plasma melta flamer. I run msu so I dont have to take more bolters than absolutely necessary.

If I could have the gaurdsman with the lasgun yes. 3 guardsmen with lasguns are waaayyyy better than 1 space marine with a bolter, but they cost about the same.

Ail
I expect to kill the stuff I'm shooting at. That's all.
AF

Ailaros wrote: Yes, and in a perfect world, plasma guns would be the small-arms of my guardsmen instead of lasguns. And they'd still cost the same too...

No, in a perfect world, your troops shoot demolisher shells out of a 72" range assault 6 gun.
(Don't get me started on the ferocity of their sidearms!)

AbaddonFidelis wrote:My point here is that if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should. You should build an army to maximize the number of special weapons your squads carry because special weapons are much better at killing things than special weapons.

but seriously, on the point trying to be made... There's a reason it is a "special" weapon, not the standard weapon. I'm going to assume you can figure out the difference (especially after reading this thread). IF you have any troubles PM me

Having said that-

Night Lords wrote:I agree that bolters suck. In my opinion they should Strength 5, leaving the Bolt Pistol at Strength 4. Very rarely is it worth standing and rapid firing instead of pistoling and charging, and S5 could help with that. Heavy Bolters are also terrible right now, and would be bumped up to S6 and an extra shot. Even then it still kills less than one marine, and the bolters kill 1/4th a marine each.

The cover system also hurts bolters because standing and shooting while in cover does nothing for them. They still only get their 3+ save against small arms fire. Fantasy's shooting is much better and far more tactical, yet it is in a game setting where ranged weaponry wouldnt be as strong. In fantasy you get "to hit" modifiers based on shooting into cover, whether you moved, etc. .

I agree- Bolters are not what, IMO, they should be. Nor is the cover system. I started playing Necromunda the other week, and my first reaction on the cover system was "This. This. Why is this not in 40k. Why. Why ><!">

starbomber
stop being dense. 3 guardsmen shoot 3 times a piece vs 1 marine shooting twice. Would you rather shoot 9 times 4+/5+/3+ or twice 3+/4+/3+?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jilallah
you said: "bolters are not imo what they should be. Nor is the cover system."

I agree. I don't understand the need for ridicule/hostility when you agree with someone.
AF

ComputerGeek01 wrote:I agree with you on one critical note, the cover system in 5th edition is WAY too generous, and this is coming from a Guard player :p . I think that a fire fight should be quick and decisive, 4+ MAX cover save and unless it's a structure built out of nano-hardend carbon steel for the purpose of stopping really big guns, then the most something should offer infantry is a 5+ cover save.

It's really not that terrible, or you would see a great deal more swarm armies on the table. Maybe you play in an area where swarms are really popular, in which case a person could always gear their lists to deal with that, no problem.

Firefights often last for a very long time, not that it has all that much to do with WH40k game mechanics, depending on what you want the game to be. With all of the mech armies I see, cover is never that big of a deal, and I gear lists with cover in mind as it is. A large part of this game is chance, and while I agree that 4+ cover save bonanza can be pretty lame sometimes, making sure you understand how to determine a fair amount of swarm friendly terrain makes a big difference. Hit swarms where it hurts, their formations. With roughly 3x the amount of models to manage, there are most definitely ways to take advantage of it as a weakness. Template weapons are mean, and bolters do a substantial job of cleaning up strays.

Use more light terrain, and bring along something that can disrupt tight-knit castle formations. There are several ways to disrupt use of cover, whether that is assault units like A. Termies or shooting units like vindies, there are ways to make use of too much cover uncomfortable for your opponent.

A bit of adjustment is needed, but I don't feel it is god-awful as it is.

Night Lords wrote:You didnt address the fact that bolters suck. Regardless, tacticals suck, and its not because of AP3 weaponry, it is because they have 1 base attack, 1 special weapon and bolters... which again, are terrible.

I considered it your opinion and most of what I would need to say, has already been said multiple times.

I have absolutely no problem with you avoiding those weapons like the plague, but I disagree that they suck.

They wouldn't be OP at all. Currently they are a complete waste and no one ever takes them. They are completely useless in the current state.

Again, that is your opinion. They aren't useless, and they aren't a complete waste. I personally wouldn't spam tacs and HB if I played SM, and that would be the only situation where it would appear to be a waste of points. People do take them, and they are quite nifty on a Dakka pred. 85 points is a really good deal, even if the tank is extremely limited in it's movement.

Don't spam HB, they are not useful when used in that way. You can have your opinion, it is yours.

Oh no, a tactical squad can shoot a single gun across the board at my gaunts/orks, and still manage to only kill two (or one if I have cover). It's a heavy machine gun and kills 2 of the weakest units in the game...spending an additional 10-15 points like you said would be completely laughable. It would get used less than never.

I am still not sure where you get the idea that a free/cheap weapon with a 36" range should be SUPER WEAPON 5000! Really though, the only place I would advise against using them is on Dev squads, and that is mainly because they kinda suck. I don't recommend using them on anything but Dakka preds, and getting an 8 shot S6/AP4 sponson array @ BS4 for 25 points on an AV13 tank... that would be an amazing deal.

Perhaps you could have an argument for updating the next Smurf dex with certain options like you have described. They still won't be free, nor should they be.

Yes, Devastators would get 16 shots (4*4 is 16) and kill eight 5 or 6 point models. They still only kill 2.3 marines. Nobody uses devastators as is. Now mathhammering it out, they should be even stronger as they still suck with my suggestion. Maybe they should get 5 shots each.

Devs definitely need a rework, but I don't see the HB being buffed as drastically as you suggest.

Eldar get Warwalkers with 12 shots each for less than that, and can take 3 per slot.

Okay...

They get 8 S6 36" shots each with AP6, they cost 60 points, and they are walkers with AV10 armor. They can also outflank but suffer from the fact that S4 weapons can crush their face. I don't even understand what point you were making here. Eldar can spam S6 weapons, it is one of the things they can do. Smurfs can take 40 point transports that can pop smoke, while having the ability to stack tank lines in large games, all the while backed up by AV13/14 tanks, and an entirely different style of codex.

There isn't a direct comparison here.

Dakka Predators might actually be worth taking in that case, but as is the Combi Pred is far better and more versatile.

They are quite nifty as they are, and implementing the changes you have suggested would more than likely raise their price substantially. It would make more sense to increase the cost of the tank, drop the cost of the sponsons by about 5 points each, then add one or two more types of sponsons that you could choose from.

...did you even read what I wrote? Tyranids, Orks, Guardsmen, Daemons etc get a 4+ save instead of the 5+/6+ they normally get. They can even go to ground for a 3+. Space Marines, on the other hand, get absolutely no advantage to their regular save for being in cover, even if they go to ground.

4+/5+/6+ saves suffer the wrath of standard flamers and heavy flamers, which can be taken in very large numbers for a lot of armies. Power armor laughs at flamers...
My squad with 2 flamers and a HF can annihilate light infantry with use of doom. Wipe them clean off of the board no problem. A squad of 5 tac marines can make great use of their small numbers through formations, further reducing damage from flamers.

Tyranids, Orks, and Guard are usually outnumber SM by a huge margin, and suffer from having that many models on the board. If they use formations that reduce damage from template weaponry, the fact that they are @ a 3:1 ratio most of the time opens them up to assault. 5-10 tac marines are a great deal easier to maneuver than 30 Orks, Guard, or Guants.

If your opponent can use cover as that much of an advantage without using risky formations, or loads of bubble wrap units (which cost points), there is a good chance that you are simply getting screwed by the terrain. Guard have the advantage here, and they can be a decent counter to tacs, but not an amazing one. Use scouts if tacs cause you that many problems, there are plenty of people that prefer them.

Cover rules need a bit of work, but the obvious option would be to play with a bit less terrain that is advantageous for swarm armies alone. Try using more 5+ cover if it is really that big of a deal, causing you to lose the majority of games. You can make changes like that, and they will have a very noticeable effect on the game. Heck, most places I play have a great deal of option to choose from, and you can compromise on what pieces you choose.

I personally think the hate for bolters specifically is mostly unsupportable, focusing mainly on the fact that people are trying to take out 3+ armor with standard small arms. I find that slightly ironic, given that the 3+ armor is kind of what makes Meq unique, not entirely so, but it is one of their greatest strengths as a style of army.

Wrex
nightlords wrote:
no one ever takes them [tactical marines] they are completely useless in the current state.

he's right. they have 1 attack a piece a pea shooter gun and an armor save that is consistently cancelled out by the opponent's shooting. at 16 points a piece these guys are horrible.

His point isnt that it should be a super weapon. his point is that it ought to be worth fielding. which it is not.

you wrote:
"4+/5+/6+ saves suffer the wrath of standard flamers and heavy flamers"
yes. the wrath of flamers. In fact flamers are pretty much all around better. which was my original point.

look if I can get a 4+ cover for 5-6 points a man why would I want a guy for 16 points whose main selling point is his 3+ armor?

In short this is what's wrong with tac marines:
they cost too much
they're at best marginal in close combat
they're at best marginal at shooting.
their mobility sucks.

there's pretty much nothing good about them except for their stat line, which is worth 10 points a man *tops*
AF

Bolters are great. In my opinion, greatest standard weapon.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:he's right. they have 1 attack a piece a pea shooter gun and an armor save that is consistently cancelled out by the opponent's shooting. at 16 points a piece these guys are horrible.

Why do you rely on them so much? Are you maxing out on troops choices for some reason? All units have strengths and weaknesses, you're just looking at the weaknesses.

His point isnt that it should be a super weapon. his point is that it ought to be worth fielding. which it is not.

Why should every unit work in the exact same way? There are different types of troops units that perform in different ways. If you want another type of army, play another type of army.

yes. the wrath of flamers. In fact flamers are pretty much all around better. which was my original point.

Flamers are better than bolters? I didn't even know you could compare them like that. Flamers have a limited range, and serve a different role. What army allows every single model in a troops unit to take a special weapon? I would really like to know. You're both acting like the codices are directly comparable, they simply aren't. Some codices are weaker than others overall, it is just part of the game, though not a part I am jumping in joy over. Regardless, it doesn't make tacs worthless, it makes you a player that is more inclined to play another codex.

Read the codex a few times and just review what options are available to tacs, and in what ways they can be used with other units in the codex. You stick the unit in a vacuum (ignoring several aspects of the unit at the same time) and laugh at it, which I do not feel adds all that much to a discussion.

look if I can get a 4+ cover for 5-6 points a man why would I want a guy for 16 points whose main selling point is his 3+ armor?

I dunno, read the thread and the codex, reviewing what options are available to those tacs. You focus an awful lot on the weapons those guys are carrying, but you ignore other features entirely. I have never seen any gun in WH40k shoot itself, unless it is being fired by a unit. When it comes to something like plasma, the gun can do a pretty good job of shooting itself, but that still involves hurting the operator.

In short this is what's wrong with tac marines:

Hmm...

they cost too much

No they don't, at least not by a large amount. Perhaps they should be 80 points for the base squad, 15 for each extra model. I am not even sure it is that bad.

they're at best marginal in close combat

Play a different army, or recognize that you are telling the unit what it HAS to be, instead of using it in a way that works.

they're at best marginal at shooting.

Use a different army. Smurfs are general purpose overall, it is what they do. If you want shooty, play shooty.

their mobility sucks.

Use those cheap transports I mentioned earlier, they are neat!

there's pretty much nothing good about them except for their stat line, which is worth 10 points a man *tops*

There is the problem. You're joking.

http://instantrimshot.com/

Wow. Abaddon you're living in a fantasy land.

Ok you can get orders, I can get orbital bondbaramentaments or psychic powers.

I can say oh look my marines get a razorback with a HB with them. Cheaper. Taking orders into account changes the situation completely, and does nothing to help the conversation.

Plus, that is AT LEAST another five guardsmen. Which feths with the debate even more.

Is operating in a vacuum fair for debate? Alot more helpful then bringing orders or tanks into account.

As for the sign off... why? We can look at the person who posted it, if we don't have the willpower to look up at the poster, we shouldn't be on the internet anyway. Who are you and why should I care? You're a dakkite who constantly debates with ALOT of people...

Tactical marines are fine troops. Outclassed by the other codices? Yup. gakky? Hell no.

I use three full squads, and it is either them, or scouts... so i'll stick to my marines.

Sanguinary
better than pulse rifles?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrex
I'll just hit your 3 points. if you keep your posts to a reasonable length I'll read the whole thing but at that length no.

why do you rely on them so much?
I don't. I don't use them at all. because they suck. for the reasons we've been discussing.

flamers are better than bolters?
absolutely. flamers hit automatically and allow you to roll wounds against potentially the whole squad. bolters hit 2/3 of the time and let you roll wounds against 2 guys max. for 5 points flamers are an awesome upgrade.

you should read the codex.
I have read the codex. do you have something specific about the codex to talk about or are we just throwing insults?

AF



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor
your posts are a pretty consistent mixture of common knowledge and insults. ignore.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I have read the codex. do you have something specific about the codex to talk about or are we just throwing insults?

I am not trying to insult you, it just really seems like you're not familiar with the codex.

I don't. I don't use them at all. because they suck. for the reasons we've been discussing.

So, you're perfectly fine using scouts and I would insist that you continue to do so, if it suits your needs. You have basically said they suck because you don't like them, along with doing no less than ignoring points that others have brought up in their defense. 'They suck', is not a valid argument. You said you aren't interested in responding to my points, let alone the numerous points that are strewn throughout this thread.

absolutely. flamers hit automatically and allow you to roll wounds against potentially the whole squad. bolters hit 2/3 of the time and let you roll wounds against 2 guys max. for 5 points flamers are an awesome upgrade.

Dude... Flamers are free for tacs, they are template weapons, and besides the fact that both bolters and flamers are S4/AP5, it doesn't get much larger in terms of differences within anti-infantry weapons. I would love to see a flamer figure out how to hit 3 models every time you use it. Every time. If your opponent clumps, you are going to have a lot of opportunities to make their day uncomfortable, but that is not going to happen very often. Anyway, which codex allows every model in a troops squad to take a special weapon?

Oranges and tangerines... not quite apples and oranges, but making tangerine juice is awfully hard work.

better than pulse rifles?

Play Tau.

I think Sanguinary is pointing out that it could be worse...IE, you could have fire warriors....

IMO, Tactical squads have a clean-up back field support roles...hence their jack of all, master of none look.

As for flamers: They are great if you can get them into good positions where the enemy is not spread out (which there are situations that come up).

But I don't think the money shot occurs that often.
________________
Personally, those that have extensively used units with dual Special weapons are gonna look down on tacticals no matter what.
Spoiled is the word...(this includes me). Though I do like the Tactical in how it fits in with the rest of the Codex, but is somewhat over priced....but only maybe 10-20 points.
________________

/shrug, I guess I have no explanation...I frankly like my 37 twin-linked bolters...they pour out shots at a respectable amount...they are not 'drop kick' good, but they get the job done in my experience. Liking them doesn't really come into question because you just get them standard, so I can't complain......I mean.... I could have had something worse...on the flip side something better would be awesome but it would reek of balance issues (prob. a points increase or something undesirable).

Is the problem with the Bolter, or with Tactical Marines in general?

If you want to fix Tactical Marines, give them greater access to special weapons. How, in the name of sweet fluff, does it make any sense that a Guard Veteran squad can have access to 3 Special Weapons, and a Marine squad can only take one?

I would have to agree with Nuggz here somewhat, that does make a good deal of sense. It would be nice if the squad could just choose 2 of either type of weapon, special or heavy.

There isn't a huge problem there because you can just take two full squads for the same effect, even though it kind of sucks that you can't just take 2 specials for the whole squad.

Marines are not specialist units, they are versatile units, so the idea that a veteran IG squad would be better at bringing nasty weapons makes a lot of sense as well. I still think that allowing for two special weapons or two heavies would be pretty cool, and not really OP.

I think we have ourselves a level 10 troll here guys. Get out the flamers.

Who the hell shoots bolters are wraith guard? Charge them with any MEQ unit and they are tarpitted for the rest of the game, and use bolters to shred guardians.

Bolters are fine, they do great against light infantry.

I'm not a fan of the flamer doctrine, every MEQ flamer is 1 less melta gun on the field.

If the enemy spreads out a bit on cover it's only going to nail 6 models.

Against Genestealers 6 hits=3 dead. That's not enough to wipe a squad, so they are just going to jump out and eat whoever lite 3 of them on fire.

Against Orks 6 hits=3dead. Whooopie that's 18 points of boyz. That's not going to make or break the CC when the MEQ charge the orks.

Against Gaunts 6 hits=4 dead. Whoopie that's 20 points of gaunts. That's not going to make or break the CC when MEQ charge the gaunts.

Against IG, Tau, and guardians who F cares. If they are close enough to flame they are close enough to charge and slaughter in CC.

Against pretty much all light infantry except genestealers the MEQ are going to be better off charging than rapid firing. The only time MEQ won't get the charge is in a Rhino ass attack where everybody jumps out and rapid fires. If the rapid firing bolters are not enough to drop something nasty like genestealers then 3 dead genestealers from 6 flamerthrower hits is just going to get the MEQ eaten by bugs.

MEQ players forget how deadly bolters are because MEQ are so resistant against small arms fire that they forget everybody else isn't so.

Bolters control where the enemy moves. MEQ players have no idea how much their bolters effect the battle plans of light infantry.

2/3 games are objective based. MEQ players should always place objectives out in the open and as far from cover as possible when fighting light infantry.

SuperNiceGuy wrote:I think we have ourselves a level 10 troll here guys. Get out the flamers.

+1 cause AF can't hear me.

Wrex
ok. about the codex. what is it about the codex you believe I'm missing? I've been wrong before.

I use bikes terminators or assault marines, never scouts or tac marines. every one of these basic troop choices available to a marine player (if your a codex whore, which I am ) is waayyy better than a tac marine. I guess you missed my earlier point about why marines suck. here's what I said:
1. they cost too much
2. they have only 1 attack
3. they have a pea shooter dinky gun
4. their 3+ armor doesnt protect them and anyway 4+ cover is so easy to get that there's no reason to pay out the yin yang for something you can usually get for free.

yes sometimes the flamer doesnt shoot. delivering the flamer is a tactical problem though not a defect of the weapon itself. you're right marines take flamers for free sorry Im used to bikes and chaos marines who pay 5 points a piece. your right. No codex lets you take all special weapons but bikes can come pretty close: 4 bikes 2 meltas 1 combi melta + attack bike with multi melta = 1 troop choice if your captain is on a bike. the combination of special weapons cost efficiency mobility and scoring is awesome. it's what I advocate in that book.

AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nugz

I agree with you. to me the bolter is part of a bigger problem with tac guys in general but w/e. tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades master of none like sanct says. as it stands they're just masters of none. if they could carry 2 heavy weapons or 3 specials it would be true. as it stands you have to park a 200+ point unit to shoot 1 las/plasma cannon or whatever. considering how unlikely a single lascannon shot is to hurt even the weakest target in cover it makes no sense to do this.

So yeah I guess it's just a general dissatisfaction with tac marines. they're the only thing in the game that's gotten worse and more expensive as the game has evolved. in 3rd edition they were good.

AF

Well, so hang on here.

Yes, bolters DID get worse in 5th ed. And one could imagine being disappointed in their performance compared to editions of old. The problem though, is that times change, and you can't expect things to be the same, including small arms.

I mean, let's look at this comprehensively for a moment:

4th ed. was all about which units could put out the most damage possible. Cover was worse, and everyone's stuff was more expensive compared to the price of unupgraded squads. Also, close combat was something you never wanted to get into as it was a slow and ineffective way to kill off your opponent, generally speaking.

In this rules edition, running up, parking your butts, and firing bolters at 12" made more sense.

But now we're living in a 5th ed world. Instead of 5+ cover, lots of stuff can EASILY get 3+ cover (with go to ground). Furthermore close combat absolutely rocks in this edition. This means if you want to kill your opponent's stuff faster, you don't shoot them in 5+ cover, because it's now 3+, but instead you charge in and wipe them off as they fail morale with a huge penalty.

As well, back in 4th ed the only value that a tac squad had was how much damage they put out. Now the damage they put out is immaterial compared to their ability to hold objectives and deny KP. As such, the shift went away from "how much damage can my bolters do?" to "how long can I keep a tac squad alive?" Having high-damage small arms is crucial to the first, now moot, question, but it actually doesn't necessarily help all that much with regard to the new, relevant question.

This is less a case of bolters becoming the ultrasuck, and more a case of the metagame changing and leaving bolters (along with ALL small arms), behind. If you yearn for the days of short-ranged firefights with short ranged weapons, then take lots of drop pods and transports, or play sisters or guard (as a guard player, I can attest to just how many plasma guns et. al. they can take). That or play 4th ed.

Relative to your ability to win games, yeah, bolters actually aren't all that great. Relative to your ability to win games, space marines are still a competitive army, and tac squads are still great for a variety of purposes.

Oh, and...

Jihallah wrote:No, in a perfect world, your troops shoot demolisher shells out of a 72" range assault 6 gun.

They would also cause pinning

But it's not all sunshine and lollipops for the bikers.
__________
Right, tactical squads suck...it doesn't support the topic you proposed at the beginning.

Bolters suck on tacticals....then lets expand it to other MEQ's that use it. SW/BA/Sisters/'Essentially' GK's, etc.

As for the tactical hate:
They cost just right if you factor in the 'free' vet, special, heavy. Their one attack does suck, but in the transition gained a bolt pistol, so it's not 100% gakky. The bolter has alot going for it though ... it's like a jack of all trades, master of none (ie, long, medium ranges, it can double output, it has enough str too threaten light tanks and does average against MEQ and better at GEQs).

It is apparent they don't fit you playstyle so that you get bikers...it doesn't make them unable to win games or perform exceedingly well. They have a specific role/usage/expectation that just might not mesh with you and hence look worse than they could be. Not saying they are all-stars but they hold the line well enough as the standard to which the rest of the 40K universe measures against..........

schaden

about shooting wraithguard with bolters.
well it was a mistake no doubt. I believed I could kill even the toughest units if I just shot them with enough bolters. while mathematically true within the context of the game its pretty much impossible to put enough bolters on a target like that in order to get rid of it. learned by doing. my point is that if weight of fire cant kill even 1 wraithguard in that situation then weight of fire isnt the answer. which is the only logic I can conceive of for massing up on bolters as opposed to special weapons.

about flamer doctrine
I see your point about bolters vs flamers. I think you make a good point. to be clear I'm running vulkan and I would never endanger a unit of mine in order to delvier just 1 flamer attack. I put flamers on my command squad for instance so we're talking about 4 twin liked flamers + a captain or vulkan who will also carry a flamer. so let's say against a 30 boy ork squad lets say each flamer covers 8 guys (pretty much typical in my experience against masses) and 3/4 of those wll wound with no cover or armor saves allowed thats 6x5 dead orks. all of them. except maye the nob. even if the dice rebel against me the squad will be devastated. The other situation is with land speeders with heavy flamers of which I am also a big fan. the land speeders do good damage and are more or less immune from light infantry in assaults.

I agree with you 100% it's never woth it to endanger a whole squad just to deliver 1 flame thrower.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailiros
I agree w you about bolters and close combats.
I just think its a good idea to minimize the number of them in the force as opposed to flamers and meltas which right now rock for marines.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sanct

yeah we got a little off topic. bolter hate is a subset of tac hate lol

if the guy who carried it cost less I could see. but 16 points just to deliver 2 str 4 ap 5 shots? idk I just dont like it. 26 points for a guy who delivers 1 str 8 ap 1 shot is more feasable to me. MEQ is everywhere and guard are in cover I want stuff that kills MEQ.

if nothing else the wraitguard/thunderwolf examples show that they cant be relied upon to do the hardcore killing. no matter how many of them you throw at the badguys.

Play Thousand Sons, ap3 bolters, you can move and shoot 24" and you can rapid fire and assault.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:So yeah I guess it's just a general dissatisfaction with tac marines.

I just think its a good idea to minimize the number of them in the force as opposed to flamers and meltas which right now rock for marines.

This portrays an entirely different opinion than what you were stating earlier. I have not seen anyone call tacs completely awesome, but you certainly called them crap.

If you don't like them, don't use them, but try to be honest when you discuss your opinions. I am not going to respond to all of the points that you brought up, because they were addressed earlier by a combination of my replies and others. Ailaros had some great points on this, as well as schadenfreude and Sanctjud, and you responded to them in an honest fashion.

I appreciate it.

I'm not even sure if we are OT here, it really seems like this is what the discussion was about in the first place, concerning bolters for tacs that is.

Marines are not the close combat monsters or shooting experts that other races are. It makes sense that the bolter would go with marines because it does ever thing just well enough. If you have Rhinos just drive up, jump out and rapid fire this will take care of your cover save issues for the most part.

cheapbuster wrote:I like a bitta plohzma

same, but theres no reason to say that bolters aren't good, if you dont want to rapid fire, use the bolt pistol they have, and they can still assault, if Space Marines had a weapon with the str equivalent to tau they would be way overpowered, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s against most normal infantry and topped with all their other stats it would just make them way to much for 16 points. yes they have the heavy bolter but thats not for every man in the squad.

I really don't think the boltgun is that bad. Same for tacs. I agree that you can take a minimum amount, but they are a solid choice. I think you are looking at the armor and cover save backward, you see, they pack the 3+ with them. They don't have to find something to hide behind. And for as much as there is to pen 3+ armor, there is also just as much that denies cover. I think they are a solid anchor for an army, not a complete plan.

Wrex....
the problem with ok units is the opportunity cost, not the unit itself. for instance a chaos tactical marine is a bad unit bc for 8 points more he could have been a plague marine, who for 23 points is a much better buy than the tac marine at 15. ok units make armies that are just...you know...ok....not great. unless there's some really clever way to use that unit because it has a unique ability...

yes....I try to keep things honest....
AF

I need to eat more than rice. I often eat beans AND rice. Sometimes I add corn, and even meat. Occasionally I wrap that stuff up in a tortilla, slap it around with some guacamole, sour cream, and salsa, then call it a burrito. Smurfs can make a mean burrito and tac marines are just the rice and beans.

If a list I make requires the supplement of tac marines, I will take them in numbers that my cap limits. My tac marines (my rice and beans), bring a whole lot more than bolters to the table, and they do it quite well.

I don't even play Smurfs, I play Eldar. If I want Dire Avengers, I use them because they serve a purpose. I can use Guardians instead if I like, and Wraithguard as troops if I am feeling extra crazy. What my guardians can do, my avengers can't.

Tac marines ignore that. They don't care. They walk onto the field and act like tac marines. They are so bland they are unique. It is actually quite funny when you think about it. They can do what you need them to, but you will often have other units that can perform certain roles in a more efficient way. There is no reason to consider tacs a waste just because you have something in your army that specializes in a certain role.

In 3rd ed, Tactical Marines could take 2 special weapons. We could easily solve the problem with Tactical Marines by making the following changes:

Squad size: 5-10 models.

Cost: 80, 16 pts ea. No longer comes with Vet. Sgt

For every 5 Tactical Marines, 1 may be equipped with a Special or Heavy weapon. If the squad is a full 10 Marines, one may be upgraded to Vet. Sgt for 10 points (w/ current profile).


This would cheapen up the objective holders (do you really need a vet sgt to babysit the missile launcher all the way in the backfield?), and give you a little bit more versatility. Furthermore, kitting out your Tactical squads would finally be worth something: you could run 10x Tactical Marines, 2x Meltaguns, 1x Vet Sgt w/ Combimelta and PF in a Rhino. Now THAT is something I'd pay points for.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Wrex....
the problem with ok units is the opportunity cost, not the unit itself. for instance a chaos tactical marine is a bad unit bc for 8 points more he could have been a plague marine, who for 23 points is a much better buy than the tac marine at 15.

AF

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We need to start a new topic on this if that is how you really feel about CSMs.
Chaos Space Marines (as they are not tactical marines) are the best buys of their time. Certainly codex creep skews things, but within their own codex, they are the cost effective unit choice.

It is an over-generlization to think that plague marines are more cost effective than CSM in all areas and situations. <----------------This is coming from a player that backs plague marines from the beginning of time itself.
____________________________

As an aside... if you want every unit in an army to be 'great', then I suggest going for Warmachine/Hordes... 40K is known for a major element of 'fluff'...which screws with unit choices alot.
____________________________
@Wrex:
Yea it's funny...their specilization is to be a general line-unit. In addition, the Fluff could also skew the expected results of bolters in-game due to game balance...

@Nuggz:
Well, if you want that then you'd just simply play SW or BA.
SMurfs follow the Little Blue Book... and it apparantly says 'no u' to the double specials these days...

Sanctjud wrote:
@Nuggz:
Well, if you want that then you'd just simply play SW or BA.
SMurfs follow the Little Blue Book... and it apparantly says 'no u' to the double specials these days...

Believe me, I've seen the de-evolution of Smurfs. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and I have to say that post-4+ save Tactical Marines really got kicked in the nuts in 5th edition. There's a reason I play CSM and BA now.


A buddy of mine who's been playing for nearly as long made a comment to me recently, "It's a good thing we don't have save modifiers anymore, because I hated spending the points for Power Armor and ending up with a 4+ save 99% of the time". 5th Edition is an even greater blow: Tac Marines are tougher than they were, but nearly everything else gets a 4+ cover save. This is worse!

Well...I guess hating bolters sub-consciously represents hating GW...

Sanctjud wrote:Well...I guess hating bolters sub-consciously represents hating GW...

Hate is a pretty strong word, but their philosophy to me seems flawed, at least a bit. They achieve game balance via "the big picture", ie: Codices. EX: Tac Marines suck, but Vanilla Marines get cheap Assault Terminators, so it's "balanced". Unfortunately, this leads to most Codices having a very small number of competitive builds. Better points management and rules balance would allow for more competitive builds by all Codices at all points levels: things would just scale better. As it is, you see only the newest Codices producing multiple distinct competitive builds.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Sanguinary
better than pulse rifles?
AF

Hell yes. Statistically Marines with Bolters cause an identical number of wounds against T4 as FW wth Pulse Rifles. Against T3 Marines with Bolters pull ahead, and only against T5 and T6 does the Pulse Rifle perform better. Since the ratio of T4&T3 in the game is much higher than t6+, the Bolter is supierior. You're also looking at the weapon seperated from the troops. Your Marines can take a flamer and melta and vastly improve their flexibility, You have T4 with 3+ saves and ld 9 or higher.

Take some Tau who's *only* option is pulse rifles or pulse carbines, T3, 4+ saves, and ld 7 and you'll be crying to go back to your 'crappy' Tac marines with their 'crappy' bolters

As a chaos player I love my bolters.

A 10 man vanilla CSM squad with 2 melta guns is everything tac marines wish they could be. Bolt Pistol+CCW+Boltgun with 2 melta guns. They tend to get overshadowed by PM, but when it comes down to it vanilla CSM are every bit as solid of a troops choice. PM have T5 and FNP, but the vanilla are 2/3 the cost so they get 50% more CC attacks and 50% more bolter fire for the same cost. Chaos marines are a far better jack of all trades unit than tac marines. Codex marines are a very competitive army, but tac marines have never been their strong point.

Simple massed bolt guns are no joke to a horde army when lash pulls units out of cover. Against genestealers all that is needed is a single havoc missile launcher from a rhino against clumped genestealers followed by some bolt gun fire and they die in droves. Obliterators can then stay focused on gunning down MC.

Chaos players become so obsessed with cult troops people easily overlook that the basic chaos marine is one of the best troops choices in the game.

I do like bolters they are a decent basic weapon, But i can see why folks dont like em.

when used by scouts there a lot more usefull than on marines, the infiltrate rule gives them an advantage of shredding the lesser units that tend to be the "meat sheild" at the front of most armies, if any survive after that then they are just as usefull against the harder stuff as long as they are supported by sniper teams and tacti and devastator squads.

if you look at the other armies basic units weapons the bolter is one of the best you can use.

actually the only weapon i can think of that the space marine army can use is the shotgun........i mean come on please wats the point of them at all.

@schadenfreude:
Up until Space Puppies and Twilight Marines came out .

So... AbaddonFidelis argues with most of everyone. Then ignores the people who don't feel like properly debating with him and his silly debates... like oh, my 18 points have this extra 50 points compared to your 16 points!

Wonderful!

As to the actual topic:

I like them, mostly since I have to use them. I could take them, or BS 3 scouts, so naturally, I am going to stick with the tactical marines.

The other races have better options for them, like BP & CCW, or AP 3 bolters. Some of them are cheaper too so be it, I play space marines, and I like them.

Nugz
True


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sanct
They arent more cost effective in *all* situations. just in *most* situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nugz
you wrote:
They achieve game balance via "the big picture", ie: Codices. EX: Tac Marines suck, but Vanilla Marines get cheap Assault Terminators, so it's "balanced". Unfortunately, this leads to most Codices having a very small number of competitive builds. Better points management and rules balance would allow for more competitive builds by all Codices at all points levels: things would just scale better. As it is, you see only the newest Codices producing multiple distinct competitive builds.

I agree completely. I wish they would take more care about balancing the units. Other companies would call that R&D
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroot
I'm skeptical that a str 5 ap 5 30" gun would be in some cases inferior to a str 4 ap 5 24" gun. can you provide some instances of where the 2nd is better?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Schaden
against a horde out of cover yes bolters are strong. horde players know this however...... yes the demon prince can get them out of cover. I'd rather flame them if at all possible. now someone will say "well you cant have flame throwers all the time you just have to make do." yes. I got that. my point is that the more flamer/melta/plasma vs bolters you can take the better. upgrade everything. minimize bolters.

chaos tac marines are I agree a much better buy than loyalist tac marines. but neither of them are, imo, worthwhile. the specialization of the cultists is what makes them stronger, to me. they know what they're there to do. getting them to do it becomes a tactical challenge, not a problem with the build. by comparison tac marines will never rock. the capability isnt in their stat line.
AF

@AF:

Kroot
I'm skeptical that a str 5 ap 5 30" gun would be in some cases inferior to a str 4 ap 5 24" gun. can you provide some instances of where the 2nd is better?

It is inferior for indirect reasons.
To get that gun, you sacrifice Infiltrating on kroot (a big deal).
In addition they are not that durable and cost quite alot compared to the cheap-throw aways they have around them.

Sanct
Im just talking about the gun forget the guy whose carrying it.

the 30" range on the FW weapon is a red herring, FW are not sturdy enough to survive outside of their transports. in nearly all circumstances, the FW will be moving in transports and only disembark to lay down volume of fire within 12". Since their Transports do not have firing ports, by and large the effective range of the Pulse Rifle is rapid fire range, 12". The 30" range is a foot note.

Now if you have a Space Marine a Pulse Rifle, of course it's better, that's stupid. But the reason it's better is because you gave it to a BS 4 T4 3+ model. What would you have to give Tau then? A Str 6 Ap5 rifle? We'd be right back here with you complaining about how the pulse rifle sucks because the Tau weapon is better. The bolter is a flexible sturdy weapon for resilient troops. It is very servicable against the common infantry of other armies (it's intended targets) and very effective thanks to the base BS 4 of Marines.

You're complaining about the base weapon of the army, and ignoring the awesome that makes up the rest of the marine basic troop: Flexible, tough, ATSKNF, good leadership, etc. You are following the classic 'Strain out a gnat but swallow a camel' syndrome.

It seems to come down to you feel like every time you throw dice at a unit it should just evaporate. That's not even fun, that's just 'ha ha my gunz are bigger than ur gunz n I won the roll off!!!111!!1'

Maybe you should be playing IG :p

Sanctjud wrote:@schadenfreude:
Up until Space Puppies and Twilight Marines came out .

Pretty much. A year ago today the standard CSM was the best troop choice in the game in my opinion, and now I won't even bother using them (or any other CSM), simply because if you run into Wolves or Vamps youll get stomped into the ground in combat.

I really hope they come out with a Legions book...

"Now if you have a Space Marine a Pulse Rifle, of course it's better."
exactly

"thats stupid"
well you said it.

I was just talking about the guns, not the models carrying it. that's not as counter intuitive as you might think. kroot shapers can tape pulse rifles guard commisars can take bolters sm and guardsmen can both take plasma weapons etc. the characteristics of the weapon are important by themselves.

Now Kroot dont misunderstand me. my point is this... and only this...and this is like the 10th time Ive said this on this thread....so I hope your reading...IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO UPGRADE A BOLTER YOU SHOULD DO IT. read that again if you need to before replying. read it as many times as you need to. but please, for the love of christ, READ IT.

AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:1. rapid fire prevents you from charging, meaning you can't get the most out of your marines.
2. even massive quantities of bolters don't consistently kill the most threatening things in the game: thunderwolves plague marines blood angels w/sanguinary priests blood crushers etc. About a year ago I dumped a *company* worth of rapid firing bolters into 10 fortuned wraith lord. did not kill 1. not even 1. just the other week I pulled out an army that was just a ton of chaos space marines with bolters and went up against a space wolf army loaded up with thunder wolves. I rapid fired a squad with 6 plasmaguns 6 flame throwers and 28 bolters. Because of wound allocation not even one died.
3. Bolters don't handle masses of poor infantry very well either, because it's not hard to keep them in cover and use their 4+ save to keep the ap 5 from hurting too much.
4. They cant hurt tanks.

So basically plasma weapons are better for killing heavy infantry and monsters, flame throwers for killing masses of light infantry, and melta weapons for killing tanks.
AF

Its late to join the conversation, but here are my thoughts to the OP

Bolters are a tool, to be used in the arsenal of the SM army. A squad with bolters can deliver multiple mid-low STR shots with good accuracy. When is that more useful than plasma cannons, las-cannons, assault troops? Let us consider that your using 2 TAC squads with bolters, a rhino with 2 storm bolters each. Move the rhino up 6", and then hop out both squads of marines. Put the rhinos ass to ass so their AV is 11 all around, and shoot their storm bolters in addition to the marines bolters. Thats 48 bolter shots, hitting on a 3+.

Here are some examples of when that would own....
1) Seer Counsel. Even with fortune, 22 wounds from bolters would put a cramp in their style.
2) Squads caught in the open. That volume of shots would reduce a 30 man ork horde by over half on average.
3) Zoenthrope. The high save and low toughness make this an ideal candidate for bolter fire.
4) TH/SS termies. 16 wounds being dropped on the squad means 2-3 of them will die to shooting. At 40 points a model that gets pricy to lose.

They are not a tool for every situation, but in the right one they can be very effective.
(Note, yes, normally you take special/heavy weapons in tac squads. The lack of them was put in for examples sake)

Here is just something to throw in,
I shot a full squad of bolters (with one flamer, for a few extra hits), rapid fire, and since I had a heavy weapon, I had to use a bolt pistol, and the sergeant had a bolt pistol too.
Most hit, most wound, I just killed 10 orks and wounded the nob.
Don't you tell me they aren't effective, cuz they do me wonders. Sometimes, they do even better than my special weapons.

I was just talking about the guns, not the models carrying it. that's not as counter intuitive as you might think. kroot shapers can tape pulse rifles guard commisars can take bolters sm and guardsmen can both take plasma weapons etc. the characteristics of the weapon are important by themselves.

And you tell me I nitpick...

The wielder is as important as the weapon stats IMO. Else it wouldn't be realistic as the gun does need a firer.

Night Lords wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:@schadenfreude:
Up until Space Puppies and Twilight Marines came out .

Pretty much. A year ago today the standard CSM was the best troop choice in the game in my opinion, and now I won't even bother using them (or any other CSM), simply because if you run into Wolves or Vamps youll get stomped into the ground in combat.

I really hope they come out with a Legions book...

Chaos troops are still better than grey hunters or BA assault marines.

What makes puppies great is their ultra cheap ML long fangs and their HQ. On their own grey hunters are not more impressive than chaos troops.

What makes BA great is their priests (elites or HQ if in honor guard) and fast vehicles. On their own without FNP BA assault marines are not more impressive than chaos troops.

Now you can argue that the overall army codex of vampires and werewolves is better than chaos, but as far as stand alone troops choices go chaos still has it made.

I can't believe you're trying to compare weapons without also talking about the guy shooting them. You want to know what the difference between a bolter sitting on a table and a pulse rifle sitting on a table are?

The color and shape , as without a gunner neither has the ability to kill ANYTHING.

As to your main point...
Yes I would like to upgrade my bolters to a flamer/meltagun/plasma/whatever . Let me restate that. I would like to UPGRADE my bolters. All of the weapons you are proposing to take in the bolter's stead is an UPGRADE.

So what you have done this whole thread is comment on how a weapons upgrade supersedes it's basic form.

Anyone here ever play Pokemon? Of course you have.

Now, trivia question: Is Charmander or Charizard better? Naturally Charizard is better, as he is the UPGRADED form of Charmander. Does this mean Charmander sucks? No. Charmander is perfectly fine and dandy as long as you don't attack stuff that you're supposed to attack with Charizard. Charizard is also harder to get as it takes a LOT of time to upgrade him.

Naturally an upgrade beats its lesser form, but for a lesser form, a bolters not half bad. Shoots 24" and improves inside of 12", ignores some armor saves, wounds mostly on 3+ or 4+, and (since we can't discount the gunner as determined above) always hits on a 3+. And you get to bring a lot more bolters than specials. To me, this is acceptable.

Now for a note on "theoryhammer" and "mathammer".

What on god's green earth possessed you all to bring only bolters with your tacs, and only tacs with your army in your example? 40k is all about the machine that is your army working together to accomplish a goal. If you want to compare units straight up you absolutely HAVE to take the results with a grain or two of salt.

When would I ever have a single tac marine shooting at three guardsmen, in the open? Answer: never, never, NEVER EVER. My tacs roll ten man strong with a rocket and flamer and at least another ~800 pts of army floating around. Same thing applies to the guardsmen.

This game is so complicated it would take a supercomputer to effectively analyze the way you guys are trying to do.

Besides, I don't know about you guys, but I play WARHAMMER, and DON'T TELL ME THE ODDS!

JSK
you could have killed the whole squad with flame throwers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yes sanct the gun needs a firer


Automatically Appended Next Post:
schaden
within the context of the blood angels codex though dont you think the assault marine is stronger than the csm within the context of the chaos codex? I think that's got to be taken into account when comparing the two units, over and above looking at point cost weapon options stat line.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freelancer
well you're about the 10th guy whose said the same thing so I'm going to tell you the same thing I told them.

My point is this and only this: if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should do it. you should minimize the ratio of special weapons to bolters in your army.

Emperors teeth I get tired of saying that.
AF

Abaddon you are one dense player. Bolters arent made to kill the elites of the enemy, or endless swarms of greenskins, its made to kill units like tau fire warriors or eldar guardians! If you want to kill elite units, look to the melta gun or plasma, to kill swarms, flamer or heavy bolter! Here is what Ill say to you: EACH WEAPON HAS ITS OWN PLACE IN YOU ARMY! IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE BASIC BOLTERS IS, THEN TRY TO FIND OUT!

Ok, look Abaddon:
No one here is gonna argue with you that the upgraded weapons aren't better than the bolter because it's true that they are better, hence the upgrade bit. And I'm sure people understand why minimizing the number of bolters in your squads is what your going for. What people here have a problem with is your inaccurate belief that the bolter itself is so subpar that all efforts to eliminate it must be made, which it isn't true for the many reasons already posted.

So stop posting "if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should do it. you should minimize the ratio of special weapons to bolters in your army." , we've countered it, and repeting the same action again and again and expecting different results is the definetion of insanity.

I get the impression from you that standard, even one as high as the bolter, isn't good enough for you. The type of person who would never ever consider guardians if dire avengers are an option for example. Fine. Be that way. Just know that the bolter has its place in 40k, and a high place too, and any crusade undertaken to get people to stop using and liking it, will ultimately fall flat.

Freelancer48 wrote:Ok, look Abaddon:
No one here is gonna argue with you that the upgraded weapons aren't better than the bolter because it's true that they are better, hence the upgrade bit. And I'm sure people understand why minimizing the number of bolters in your squads is what your going for. What people here have a problem with is your inaccurate belief that the bolter itself is so subpar that all efforts to eliminate it must be made, which it isn't true for the many reasons already posted.

So stop posting "if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should do it. you should minimize the ratio of special weapons to bolters in your army." , we've countered it, and repeting the same action again and again and expecting different results is the definetion of insanity.

I get the impression from you that standard, even one as high as the bolter, isn't good enough for you. The type of person who would never ever consider guardians if dire avengers are an option for example. Fine. Be that way. Just know that the bolter has its place in 40k, and a high place too, and any crusade undertaken to get people to stop using and liking it, will ultimately fall flat.

Rare is it that a post count could be so low, yet his words so true.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:starbomber
stop being dense. 3 guardsmen shoot 3 times a piece vs 1 marine shooting twice. Would you rather shoot 9 times 4+/5+/3+ or twice 3+/4+/3+?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jilallah
you said: "bolters are not imo what they should be. Nor is the cover system."

I agree. I don't understand the need for ridicule/hostility when you agree with someone.
AF

I don't think you fully understand- whilst I agree the cover system needs works, and bolters imo could be upped a bit- but your whining is ridiculous and sometimes hypocritical in nature. Why do you feel the need to be hostile and call people dense? Feel free to call this kettle black, because it's quite aware of it- look in the mirror first, pot

Oh, not to mention the whole "My basic infantryman's gun doesn't hurt tanks waaaah" was a peice of comedy gold

Sanctjud wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Wrex....
the problem with ok units is the opportunity cost, not the unit itself. for instance a chaos tactical marine is a bad unit bc for 8 points more he could have been a plague marine, who for 23 points is a much better buy than the tac marine at 15.

AF

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We need to start a new topic on this if that is how you really feel about CSMs.
Chaos Space Marines (as they are not tactical marines) are the best buys of their time. Certainly codex creep skews things, but within their own codex, they are the cost effective unit choice.

So the reason i feel need for hostility is when people say dumb things like CSM's are bad. I've played plenty of games where those extra bolters would have been just enough to clear objectives- the downside of plague marines. I've played plenty of games too where FNP or having to roll 1-2 less wounds would have kept that squad on the point- the downside of Chaos marines. It's a 15 point space marine with LD 10! can take TWO special weapons in a squad! That can take a icon for DS'ing all kinds of shenanigans/buffing up the squad! that has 2 CCW's base! Anyone who says they are bad really is being stupid or trolling. Either try and absorb what people are telling you, in the case of you are stupid, or if you are trolling, then i find it odd that you could be bothered to do it and get something out of it, so if you are trolling, just a quick honest question- are your parents brother and sister, or are they cousins?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Freelancer
well you're about the 10th guy whose said the same thing so I'm going to tell you the same thing I told them.

My point is this and only this: if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should do it. you should minimize the ratio of special weapons to bolters in your army.

Emperors teeth I get tired of saying that.
AF

My point is this and only this- if you think people aren't upgrading bolters, you are an idiot. Only a someone utterly new to the game would not take special and heavy weapons on their tac squads. We aren't saying just take a horde of bolters- We aren't saying special weapons aren't good. We're saying that for the guns that hang around and protect the special/heavy weapons, bolters are ok, in fact pretty ok.

Ailaros wrote:
Oh, and...

Jihallah wrote:No, in a perfect world, your troops shoot demolisher shells out of a 72" range assault 6 gun.

They would also cause pinning

crap bro we forgot 2xd6 penetration and rending!

- feel the need to edit and point something out- I'm pretty sure I've called Ailros an idiot, and he's responded in kind before. Ailaros often says something alot of people find odd or silly, but I value him since his ideas make me think quite often.

However, at no point has he make a point about why bolters are bad where the point was "they cant hurt tanks"

Rare is it that a post count could be so low, yet his words so true.

Why thank you, Darkhound, I aim to please.

schadenfreude wrote:

Night Lords wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:@schadenfreude:
Up until Space Puppies and Twilight Marines came out .

Pretty much. A year ago today the standard CSM was the best troop choice in the game in my opinion, and now I won't even bother using them (or any other CSM), simply because if you run into Wolves or Vamps youll get stomped into the ground in combat.

I really hope they come out with a Legions book...

Chaos troops are still better than grey hunters or BA assault marines.

What makes puppies great is their ultra cheap ML long fangs and their HQ. On their own grey hunters are not more impressive than chaos troops.

What makes BA great is their priests (elites or HQ if in honor guard) and fast vehicles. On their own without FNP BA assault marines are not more impressive than chaos troops.

Now you can argue that the overall army codex of vampires and werewolves is better than chaos, but as far as stand alone troops choices go chaos still has it made.

Grey Hunters have everything CSM have except they also have counter attack, acute senses, 5 point meltas, Mark of the Wulfen, Wolf Standard and ATSKNF, but only 1 powerfist attack and ld8.

Blood Angel Priests are a standard choice and are independent characters that run with these squads...so I dont see why they shouldnt be accounted for. CSMs fighting BAs in CC are going to get destroyed, which was the point of my post.

camboyz
w/e

Freelancer
you wrote:
"No one here is gonna argue with you that the upgraded weapons aren't better than the bolter because it's true that they are better"
well we agree about that much.

you wrote:
So stop posting "if you get a chance to upgrade a bolter you should do it. you should minimize the ratio of special weapons to bolters in your army." , we've countered it, and repeting the same action again and again and expecting different results is the definetion of insanity."

I'm not really expecting anything except to wile away some spare time talking about a hobby I love. Every once in a while I hear a good idea. If someone's a complete waste of time I ignore them. pretty rational from where I sit. w/e

yes I would never take guardians if dire avengers were available. exactly.
AF

Jil
I dont want to get off topic about plague marines vs csm. if you really want to have that conversation start a thread. or just look at the ard boyz results. w/e.

anyway you're pretty much a slow so ignore. mb you and some of the other people I'm ignoring can get together and have an "I hate AF" party. I'll never know
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nightlords
I agree 100%

Hey Jihallah, welcome to the club! Now we never have to worry about him responding to our threads. At this rate he'll have all of Dakka ignored within a month.

EDIT: Except Night Lords.

But Night Lords makes sense...so he's cool..
Nothing, nothing, just randomly talking.

Yes, these are chores too,

I agree with Nightlords too- but my plague marines don't last much longer either! CSM IMO are still a solid choice. If we are trying to really tune an army into as competitive as possible is a different story, but for most games CSM perform well.


To be frank, I'm more annoy AF didn't answer my question about his parents... It was just an honest question

Also his calling of people "slow" whilst being repeatably unable to spell my handle is pretty hilarious He's gotten it right once lol. If you want a laugh and go through the guys posts- the image of a fat neckbearded antisocial twerp slowly starts to form in the mind, take shape, and then almost solidify

Are you really complaining about Bolters? Really? C'mon man! Take the Basic weapon of your army and compare it to:

Shuriken Catapult: S4 AP5 Assault 2 12"
Shoota: S4 AP6 Assault 2 18"
Lasgun: S3 AP- Rapid Fire 24"
Pulse Rifle: S5 AP5 Rapid Fire 30"
Devourer: S6(max) AP- Assault2X 18"
Splinter Rifle: S3 AP5 Rapid Fire 24"
Gauss Flayer: S4 AP5 Rapid Fire 24" Gauss

The only standard weapon that is better is the Pulse Rifle, and it goes with a model that is WS2 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I2 A1 Ld7 Sv+4

I would love to be able to take Bolters, but only 5 models of mine can!

This is why your complaints are falling on deaf ears, the Bolter is arguably the best bang (horrendous pun!) for your buck Standard Armament in the game.

Be glad that's your BASE FREAKING WEAPON!!

Stormrider wrote:Are you really complaining about Bolters? Really? C'mon man! Take the Basic weapon of your army and compare it to:

Honestly I'd rather have Tactical Boyz w/ Shootaz than Bolters. Just sayin'

"Complete waste of time" was a knee slapper.

The irony is palpable from him...

It irks me when people hand out bad advice, i'm waiting until zachar gets back on to get my nasty-gram.

We should have a poll instead, and no debating. Since in Ailaros-ian form, he's not going to give up, and he is going to skew things into his favor... or just not answer questions.

Ever since Ailaros came, all the debates have been impossible, first him, now this "AF" character.

IS
(Because this makes me cooler... )

Stormrider
no...no I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.
AF

Damned space wolves/blood angels/chaos marines getting all the good weapon loadouts.

As Stormrider said, they're the best gun that we can get aside from tau... who have less BS, and fold under any close combat unit.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Are you really complaining about Bolters? Really? C'mon man! Take the Basic weapon of your army and compare it to:

Honestly I'd rather have Tactical Boyz w/ Shootaz than Bolters. Just sayin'

I would too, but then the competitive balance of the game would be way off. Hence why Orks are God awful shots, They need a lot to kill a little.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Damned space wolves/blood angels/chaos marines getting all the good weapon loadouts.

As Stormrider said, they're the best gun that we can get aside from tau... who have less BS, and fold under any close combat unit.

"Good" is relative. In the way that I usually use Bolter-armed Marines, I'd rather they be S4 AP6 Assault 2 18" range Shootaz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:

I would too, but then the competitive balance of the game would be way off. Hence why Orks are God awful shots, They need a lot to kill a little.

This is true though Orks usually want to get into melee anyway even with Shoota Boyz. So basically it's like icing on the cake you know.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Stormrider
no...no I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.
AF

That's fair, but do you realize how many threads there would be saying: "Tac marines shouldn't be able to take that many nice toys!" ? Hell them taking Two special weapons or a special and a heavy is pretty damn nice, plus combat squads, plus ATSKNF, Plus Ld8, 3+ Sv, 4's on everything else. Can't have it all my friend.

Yay everyone likes me

Jihallah, I too noticed plagues getting beaten up, but that's probably because the last two marine books caused everyone to go anti marine even more (as well as anti FNP in the BA's case). Not to mention both those armies are strong themselves, and Tyranids throw down so many attacks with poison or ignore armour (in the case of MC's) that you dont get a huge benefit.

I agree that theyre still strong, but I'd rather use my Tyranids at the moment. I love eating all marines equally with them

Night Lords wrote:Yay everyone likes me

Jihallah, I too noticed plagues getting beaten up, but that's probably because the last two marine books caused everyone to go anti marine even more (as well as anti FNP in the BA's case). Not to mention both those armies are strong themselves, and Tyranids throw down so many attacks with poison or ignore armour (in the case of MC's) that you dont get a huge benefit.

I agree that theyre still strong, but I'd rather use my Tyranids at the moment. I love eating all marines equally with them

but they smell bad and are all diseased what did they ever do to you!

Oh man i love me some bolters d(^_^)b

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Are you really complaining about Bolters? Really? C'mon man! Take the Basic weapon of your army and compare it to:

Honestly I'd rather have Tactical Boyz w/ Shootaz than Bolters. Just sayin'

Yeah, that's just what they need to do, is give BS 4 3+ save troops 18" assault 2 rifles. Aw screw it, just give them autocannons and relentless. Throw a power weapon bayonet on the end that counts as an extra CC weapon and a Storm Shield guard on it too. Allow them to add any mix of combi-multi-melta and combi-flamestorm to their autocannon for free. Then go ahead and reduce the Tac Marine point cost by 4 points, add melta-bombs as standard equipment, and maybe we can make some of these marine players happy.

now lets not be ridiculous....
not sure that it would really change anything if bolters were assault 2 18". its like oh no you kill maybe 1 more marine or a few more orks on the charge soooo scary.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:"Now if you have a Space Marine a Pulse Rifle, of course it's better."
exactly

"thats stupid"
well you said it.

I was just talking about the guns, not the models carrying it. that's not as counter intuitive as you might think. kroot shapers can tape pulse rifles guard commisars can take bolters sm and guardsmen can both take plasma weapons etc. the characteristics of the weapon are important by themselves.

Now Kroot dont misunderstand me. my point is this... and only this...and this is like the 10th time Ive said this on this thread....so I hope your reading...IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO UPGRADE A BOLTER YOU SHOULD DO IT. read that again if you need to before replying. read it as many times as you need to. but please, for the love of christ, READ IT.

AF

This is why you can't discount the models carrying it:

rapid fire range Vs. Orks:
10 Marines (Bolters): 20*.66*.5= 6.6 dead
10 Tau(Pulse Rifle): 20*.5*.66= 6.6 dead

Vs. Guard:
Marines: 20*.66*.66= 8.71 dead
Tau: 20*.5*.84= 8.4 dead

So the guns are pretty much equally effective right? Lets say the two squads had an old fashioned simultaneous shoot out
Marines: 20*.66*.66*.5= 4.356 dead Tau
Tau:20*.5*.66*.33= 2.178 dead Marines

The weapon is only as good as the individuals shooting it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:now lets not be ridiculous....
not sure that it would really change anything if bolters were assault 2 18". its like oh no you kill maybe 1 more marine or a few more orks on the charge soooo scary.

I don't think you really look at the big picture. I drive my rhino up and disembark my marines 18" away from your Orks. I fire 20 shots. I kill 6 if no cover, 4 if 5+, 3 if 4+. Unless you get a 6" Waagh!, I am out of your assault range (and probably out completely if you have to move through cover), which means that next turn, I once *again* get to shoot you with 20 shots (killing 6,4, or 3 respectively) and then assault you, denying you your furious charge and killing, without any special weapons, four Orks before they get to swing. So the Tac Squad so far has killed at least 10 Orks, versus 5~6 for either shooting with bolt pistols and assaulting, or rapid firing at 12" and taking the assault. Doubling your output isn't bad.

Now what if I used more than one squad? the 18" range means I could spread out to make multi-assault a non-issue. What if I'm Space Wolves and keep backing up till you manage to catch me and then counter-attack you?

Sternguard with special ammunition on 18" assault 2 guns?

Big Picture.

ooohhhh.... the *big* picture.... you're right. I should look at the big picture more often. I'm kind of a small picture guy but I see now that you're right. It's the big picture that counts. thanks. really.
AF

I'm honestly shocked how often people don't think of things like that on dakka. Like when i asked if anyone had ever played chess, to which i got about a million and one "chess lawl?" posts and about 3 posts of "dakka? chess? are you crazy ".

nm, not gonna bother with this...

Kroot Loops wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Are you really complaining about Bolters? Really? C'mon man! Take the Basic weapon of your army and compare it to:

Honestly I'd rather have Tactical Boyz w/ Shootaz than Bolters. Just sayin'

Yeah, that's just what they need to do, is give BS 4 3+ save troops 18" assault 2 rifles. Aw screw it, just give them autocannons and relentless. Throw a power weapon bayonet on the end that counts as an extra CC weapon and a Storm Shield guard on it too. Allow them to add any mix of combi-multi-melta and combi-flamestorm to their autocannon for free. Then go ahead and reduce the Tac Marine point cost by 4 points, add melta-bombs as standard equipment, and maybe we can make some of these marine players happy.

Did I say any of that other nonsense?

The comment was in the context of, "Bolters are the best basic infantry weapon", which IMO is an incorrect statement. Read the entire conversation or don't respond at all, it makes you look silly.

Speaking of giving Space Marines an Assault weapon, all Tactical Space Marines come with a Bolt Pistol so that they have one shot at 18"-24" if they don't move, one shot at 12"-18" if they don't move and two shots if they move directly towards the target, two shots from 1"-12" if they move and don't charge into combat, and one shot from 1"-6" if they subsequently charge for two attacks. Very tactical.

The bolter is the basic infantry gun, and I agree with abbadon with getting as many assualt weapons as you can, but if you could have all of the SM in the squad take special weapons SM would be OP.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Kroot Loops wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Are you really complaining about Bolters? Really? C'mon man! Take the Basic weapon of your army and compare it to:

Honestly I'd rather have Tactical Boyz w/ Shootaz than Bolters. Just sayin'

Yeah, that's just what they need to do, is give BS 4 3+ save troops 18" assault 2 rifles. Aw screw it, just give them autocannons and relentless. Throw a power weapon bayonet on the end that counts as an extra CC weapon and a Storm Shield guard on it too. Allow them to add any mix of combi-multi-melta and combi-flamestorm to their autocannon for free. Then go ahead and reduce the Tac Marine point cost by 4 points, add melta-bombs as standard equipment, and maybe we can make some of these marine players happy.

Did I say any of that other nonsense?

The comment was in the context of, "Bolters are the best basic infantry weapon", which IMO is an incorrect statement. Read the entire conversation or don't respond at all, it makes you look silly.

It's called sarcasm. I have read the entire conversation, the OP premise is that Bolters aren't good for a number of reasons including 'they can't hurt tanks', and cites examples such as when he shot a bunch of bolters at fortuned T6 targets with 3+ saves. Therefore the premise of the thread is that bolters are 'bad', and most people have been arguing against that. Further, this topic comes up fairly often over in proposed rules, so I get a little tired of seeing it.

Bolters are a good basic weapon. In the hands of space marines, they are *one* of the best basic weapons. I'm sure you would like an 18" assault 2 weapon. I'd like my Pulse Rifles to Rend. That doesn't change that both weapons are perfectly good the way they are now.

You clearly still do not understand the meaning of my post in context.

All i know is. only thing better than a Bolter......is a Storm Bolter. And only thing better than that is a twin-linked Storm bolter.

My Bolters always seem to serve my needs just fine.

Ideally I have them rapid fire to cover another assaulting unit. Maybe have a Flamer for those cowardly babies in cover.

SuperNiceGuy wrote:I think we have ourselves a level 10 troll here guys. Get out the flamers.

I hate Trollz...

Cam
yeah I agree if everyone could have an assault weapon the game would be silly

Assault weapons are cool, i think every army should have at least one in it for one unit, but not every unit, in every army that would be way too silly.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Stormrider
no...no I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.
AF

You said in the OP

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I don't like bolters.

I think that means you're complaining about bolters and don't like them.

OP misses many points.

1) Include the free heavy weapon into the picture. It'd cost me 20 points for a ML. Not that Chaos Marines can even take them. Our special weapons

you get 10 + 1 missile launcher 170
For 170, I can get 10 spiky marines with 2 meltaguns.
They do different jobs. The chaos ones have no guns longer than 24" range. Their only anti-tank one is 12" range.
Tacticals can damage tanks from 24-48" away.

Combat Tactics is worth at least 1-2 points per model. ATSKNF is worth 1-2 points each model at least.
No one else gets to automatically end combat after 1 round, run backwards, and automatically regroup + shoot next turn even with less than half models left.

2. Tacticals aren't supposed to be your assault troops. That's why there's something called an Assault Squad. Tacticals are a way to dig into objectives and get cheap Plasma Cannons, Multi-meltas, etc.

Heavy weapons and Special weapons do different jobs. Chaos troops can't take Heavy Weapons. Vanilla troops can't take Special weapons.

3. You assume every enemy in the entire enemy army is in terrain. If he has any models out of cover (because hormagaunts cannot stay in cover the entire journey across the board) then bolters can tear them apart with AP5. Massive hordes of guardsmen might be better shooting per point of guy, but they're also vulnerable to Ordinance and flamers completely removing cover. Marines get 3+ saves even when hit by a Whirlwind's missiles. Guardsmen don't.

Since it takes a TON of lasguns to do any damage, that means he'll have to bunch up a lot, BOOM ORDINANCE.

4) If marines were given assault weapons, they'd be 8-12" like the Shotguns which Scout marines can have.

And since you've just stated that every unit is always in cover, obviously marines have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER. You can just buy Scout marines with Shotguns on every one. They'll get 4+ cover saves AND 2 assault shots before charging into combat.

Vene wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Stormrider
no...no I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.
AF

You said in the OP

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I don't like bolters.

I think that means you're complaining about bolters and don't like them.

If only he didn't ignore me, the things i would post...

Addressing TheBloodGod's 3rd point- Thank you. to quote it- "because hormagaunts cannot stay in cover the entire journey across the board". The way some people factor in cover, it seems they assume the board is nothing BUT cover

Dude, just build your army with all plasma guns and flamers. Put it on the shelf. Never play it.
"Ohh, my regular weapons can't hurt tanks!"
Someone dial whine-1-1 for this guy, have 'em send a WHAAAmbulance.

@battle Brother Lucifer:
As funny as that was......do you realize how much /facepalm is stuffed in that one post...esp. for those that recognize where it came from...../sigh/

/Golfclap. But still funny.

Except that they can infact hurt vehicles. A squad firing at some AV10 open-topped vehicles (Ork Trukks, Warwalkers, Sentinels, Landspeeders, etc.) are reasonably effective. It takes 20 shots to destroy one, and only 10 to keep it from shooting. Even targets that aren't open-topped (Chimeras primarily) are vulnerable. If you hit the side of a Chimera with a squad of Marines, even from 24" away, you're reasonably likely to keep not only the Chimera from shooting, but its cargo.

Sanctjud wrote:@battle Brother Lucifer:
As funny as that was......do you realize how much /facepalm is stuffed in that one post...esp. for those that recognize where it came from...../sigh/

/Golfclap. But still funny.

That was the point

I said:
I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.


...


...


KrootLoops you said:
Yeah, that's just what they need to do, is give BS 4 3+ save troops 18" assault 2 rifles. Aw screw it, just give them autocannons and relentless. Throw a power weapon bayonet on the end that counts as an extra CC weapon and a Storm Shield guard on it too.

BattleBrother Lucifer you said:
Dude, just build your army with all plasma guns and flamers. Put it on the shelf. Never play it.
"Ohh, my regular weapons can't hurt tanks!"
Someone dial whine-1-1 for this guy, have 'em send a WHAAAmbulance.

Camboyz you said:
Abaddon you are one dense player. Bolters arent made to kill the elites of the enemy, or endless swarms of greenskins, its made to kill units like tau fire warriors or eldar guardians! If you want to kill elite units, look to the melta gun or plasma, to kill swarms, flamer or heavy bolter!

Jil you said:
"Oh, not to mention the whole "My basic infantryman's gun doesn't hurt tanks waaaah" was a peice of comedy gold"

Maelstrom you said:
Comparing bolters to plasma, melta, flamers is pointless. Of course bolters are worse than them, that's why you have to pay points for them and can only get them in limited quantities.

Daed you wrote:
"Hey guys, my default Troop choice weapon can't insta-kill one of the hardest to kill Elite infantry choices with one of the most obnoxious psyker powers in the game in one round."


...


...


You'd think this forum would be difficult to navigate without reading skills but apparently alot of people manage it. w/e.

AF

?

Im pretty sure it takes 54 bolters to destroy one ork truck.

54 shots -> 36 hits -> 6 glance -> 1 Immobilized +1 to wrecked.

Oh blast, you're right. Ignore me, I did something dumb with my math. Not like it matters, AF has me on his ignore list and this thread is entirely for his benefit.

Damnit Darkhound! You make my matches longer when I have to pull out my codex, and explain to my opponent ten times before doing so...

Warwalkers. ARE. NOT! OPEN-TOPPED!!!

For shame.

--------------------------------------------------------

I wish there was something beyond ignore, since everytime I see that AF posts, I want to perform brain surgery with a pencil.

Hypocrite.

Fool.

His posts are so freaking mind-blowing packed with failure.

>.<

That sign-off is annoying too, who is he? The king of trolls?

No, that'd be Gwar's occupation. Warwalkers seriously aren't open-topped? Huh. I'm striking out all over the place today.

Don't worry, I have thought my WW had shuriken catapults more than once. Damn deceptive modeling practices...

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:His posts are so freaking mind-blowing packed with failure.

>.<

That sign-off is annoying too, who is he? The king of trolls?

It isn't even necessary Inquisitor, there is no reason to continue with all of that.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.

You'd think this forum would be difficult to navigate without reading skills but apparently alot of people manage it. w/e.

now lets not be ridiculous....
not sure that it would really change anything if bolters were assault 2 18". its like oh no you kill maybe 1 more marine or a few more orks on the charge soooo scary.

ooohhhh.... the *big* picture.... you're right. I should look at the big picture more often. I'm kind of a small picture guy but I see now that you're right. It's the big picture that counts. thanks. really

yeah I agree if everyone could have an assault weapon the game would be silly

Vene wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Stormrider
no...no I'm not complaining about bolters.... I'm suggesting that if you get a chance to upgrade them to assault weapons you should... and you should try to take as few of them as possible. that's all.
AF

You said in the OP

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I don't like bolters.

I think that means you're complaining about bolters and don't like them.

Agreed with Vene, because try as you might, it is pretty clear that you aren't all that interested in actually adding much of anything to this conversation, AbaddonFidelis.

I hope people realize by now how much time has been wasted on this part of the thread, needlessly, and how little AbaddonFidelis has actually contributed.

Look, there is a lot to talk about here, but it would help if people could just let Abaddon have his opinion. He is certainly entitled to that. There is little going on at this point besides arguing with the person behind that one keyboard, so helping this thread have a point besides disagreeing with that one person could be considered a great idea. It is clear enough where most people stand on this, and even if there are opinions on both extremes, the average seems to have a decent amount of respect for the common bolter wielding tac marine. Remember that everyone can have whatever opinion they feel like, but it doesn't matter when they are one out of a few that agree, out of many, many more that don't.

Lets not make this topic "What does AbaddonFidelis think of Bolters?", that would be nice.

Wrex

you said:
"Agreed with Vene, because try as you might, it is pretty clear that you aren't all that interested in actually adding much of anything to this conversation, AbaddonFidelis."

well in fairness I did start the conversation... I added that
Really though the statement that "if you get the opportunity to upgrade a bolter you should do it" is to me so completely obvious it surprises me that anyone bothered to disagree. I mean come on.....

you said:
Look, there is a lot to talk about here, but it would help if people could just let Abaddon have his opinion. He is certainly entitled to that. There is little going on at this point besides arguing with the person behind that one keyboard, so helping this thread have a point besides disagreeing with that one person.

I agree with you completely.

AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Really though the statement that "if you get the opportunity to upgrade a bolter you should do it" is to me so completely obvious it surprises me that anyone bothered to disagree. I mean come on.....

Oh, it's on alright.

Pic unrelated...

I got that, and this will be the third or fourth time you have been quoted on that. COME ON!

Hilarious.

Your opinion changed quite drastically, and people called you on it. There really isn't any point to carrying this part of the conversation any further.

Continue thread...

yeah... I keep saying it... over... and over... and over....
but yeah this thread is getting pretty old I think Im done with it.