And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.
I am not following you, what do bolters have to do with basic orks being bad? Why should A marine players of multiple factions want their weapons be brought down to the level of a unit that ork players only take because they have to? B since went does it make any sense to compare stuff downwards.
So yeah orks are bad, but why should any non ork player care. And as you said it yourself there are far more factions using bolters then orks.
So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.
But he is not wrong. Look what units are run by marines right now. A lot of them don't even get the -1AP buff in tactical doctrine. And again you have GK, 1ksons, DG, csm and SoB who all use bolters and do not have doctrines vs SW, DA,IF,RG, WS, DW and marines who do. That is hardly 90% At best it is two thirds.
Insectum7 wrote:Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).
I get what you're saying, but their tabletop value should be much higher regardless. Attributes like strength, speed, skill, constitution, awareness, psychology, etc. are all represented to some extent on the tabletop, as are weaponry, armor, tactics... almost all of which are toned down for Marines.
A boltgun is just one aspect of this (and it could be argued that the suggestions in this thread are compromises, and that a fluffy bolter would be even more powerful). I can only imagine the ire if we went into everything else.
Astartes weren't created for that purpose; they were created to wage total war in humanity's reclamation of the stars, i.e. as transhuman legionary footsoldiers of the Great Crusade. The Imperial Army was formed to support the Astartes and provide garrison forces.
Astartes may be rarer now, and deploy in smaller numbers, but they aren't conventional special forces. They're supremely-armed and armoured superhuman shock troops who occasionally fulfil a special forces role. And each Astartes requires hundreds or thousands of times the investment (material and otherwise) of even the most elite special forces operative today.
18 pts...
They were designed as force multipliers in the old fluff, the new fluff is yet again written from a fanboy perspective with little to no ability to grasp common sense which is self evident by their number counts.
So... we should just ignore the whole Great Crusade/Horus Heresy aspect, because you dislike it?
SemperMortis wrote:Regardless, the original question was
Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?
And my answer was, if the game was more reality based, as a force multiplier rather than to win entire wars on their own...kind of like how in the vast majority of the fluff, they augment imperial forces rather than launch entire global spanning wars of their own.
But this is going around in circles and sidestepping my point. They were initially created to be the Imperial forces, to be the ultimate footsoldiers. They often augment Imperial forces now because of limited numbers, but that doesn't make them SAS with purity seals. You generally send in Astartes for one purpose: to hit something really, really hard with inhumanly-capable infantry who can survive the ordeal. And we only get a shadow of that on the tabletop IMO.
SemperMortis wrote:As far as calling your suggestion about Shootas being a sidegrade at best? its because it is. I have been very adamant since the codex leaked that the new "Dakka" rule was a straight NERF to shootas and big shootas. Most of your proposed "Buffs" would be returning it to how it was last edition before some idiot at GW decided DAKKA! 3(2) was a better profile than Assault 2 and the old "Dakka Dakka Dakka" rule.
Yes, exactly. The opposite of a nerf is usually called a buff.
I don't care what the stats once were. I care about how the weapon concepts translate into stats now.
Cool, and I call nerfing an already crap weapon into the dirt to the point where shootas boyz almost never make an appearance even in local friendly tournaments is a dumb move, and "buffing" them back to basically where they were (worse when adjusted for points cost increases) isn't a buff. That would be like me taking bolters, reducing them to S3, increasing your cost of taking them by 2ppm, taking away new Rapid Fire rules for them and than, 1 edition later, "buffing" them back to S4. Not really a buff is it?
I get where you're coming from, but technically that's the definition of a buff (improving something relative to its existing state). And it certainly wasn't a nerf, as people kept claiming. Can you at least understand why I objected to being told I was biased/nerfing the weapon when the numbers suggested otherwise, and in a thread dedicated to improving the bolter?
SemperMortis wrote:*Ork vs Marine efficiency comparisons*
I get it, shoota Orks aren't great in terms of points efficiency. I'm not debating that. All I did was post my take on a shoota/big shoota that seemed representative lore-wise. And which came with some minor buffs overall.
Which is also exactly what I wanted to achieve with the bolter stats I posted.
As I've said many times before, points should be dictated by a model's capabilities, not vice versa. Things being incorrectly costed is a separate issue to them being misrepresented.
SemperMortis wrote:Also, I highlighted part of your reply to point out an issue, you ignored the BS of the firer...well that is kind of a problem because the reason why orkz need 4-6 shots per gun is the fact that we hit on 5s. So ignoring the biggest hindrance to Ork ranged firepower is a bit ridiculous. Dudeface made a comment about the shoota vs the bolter and said would I rather take the bolter, and the answer is YES if I get the current rules the Marine factions get with it, IE BS3, 2 shots at 24' AP-1 on turn 2, yes, I would take that in a heartbeat over Dakka 3(2) any day of the week. You can't ignore the BS of the most common user of the weapon because that is literally part of its inherent power.
It isn't, it's part of the wielder's power. E.g. AM sergeants can get bolters at BS4+, SM commanders can get the same weapon at BS2+ (I personally think Astartes bolters should be a step up from AM ones, but the point currently stands). And overarching things like doctrines, stratagems, etc aren't part of a weapon. They don't change a weapon's profile across all datasheets. They aren't immutable attributes that follow the weapon wherever (and whenever, turns-wise) it goes.
Mathematically, shootas aren't weak relative to bolters. Ork Boyz are weak relative to Tactical Marines, sure. Those are two different things. Co-related, and accounted for (ideally) by a model's combined points cost... but different. Space Marines can be better ranged combatants than Orks without bolters being better than (or even equal to) shootas.
SemperMortis wrote:If you really want to give Bolters -1AP you could make an argument for that, so long as you took away doctrines, and honestly Marines would need a points increase for a few things, like the hurricane bolter and the Stormbolter. But otherwise yeah go ahead, but lets not pretend like its much weaker than everything else, its pretty much smack dab in the middle.
That's all most pro-buff people in this thread have been arguing for this entire time I think: AP1 standard in lieu of AP-boosting doctrines, and ensuing points adjustments.
Admittedly I'm in the camp that thinks the bolter would still be a bit weak relative to lore and wants a little something extra, like the proposed Dmg 2... but I see no reason why that couldn't be accommodated by points increases too (which would, ironically, decrease their overall points-efficiency against Ork Boyz ).
And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.
I am not following you, what do bolters have to do with basic orks being bad? Why should A marine players of multiple factions want their weapons be brought down to the level of a unit that ork players only take because they have to? B since went does it make any sense to compare stuff downwards.
So yeah orks are bad, but why should any non ork player care. And as you said it yourself there are far more factions using bolters then orks.
So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.
But he is not wrong. Look what units are run by marines right now. A lot of them don't even get the -1AP buff in tactical doctrine. And again you have GK, 1ksons, DG, csm and SoB who all use bolters and do not have doctrines vs SW, DA,IF,RG, WS, DW and marines who do. That is hardly 90% At best it is two thirds.
1: you missed my point entirely. You pointed out that Marine weapons didn't get the buffs other factions did, IE D3+3 dmg on lascannon equivalents etc. I am pointing out that this isn't a valid reason to buff bolters, or if you truly believe it is than lets start buffing everyones weapons and really kick up the power creep so that before long we have Marines again complaining that even with AoC their marines aren't durable enough.
2: Yes, this is being pedantic. I pulled 90% out of thin air, besides dudeface and yourself i doubt anyone took the 90% literally, arguing that point instead of the main point isn't a valid argument, its a red herring argument at best.
But here we go again down the long and circuitous path of Marine players complaining about things they themselves were in favor of a few months prior.
I jokingly made a list of previous editions where Marine players complained about their durability in the game and were then given durability buffs the next edition just to then complain that those buffs nerfed them in the dmg output category, and then GW buffed their dmg output they complained about durability. The worst part is, I think Marines are about the only faction GW listens to in regards to their complaints. I can't wait for the next buff to increase basic bolter fire to AP-2 or AP-1 and defeats AoC just for Marines to then come back and say "My marines aren't durable enough anymore!" This has been going on for over a decade now and it is 100% cyclical.
Basic Marines with their bolters are more durable than in the last 5 editions at least. They are more capable of dealing dmg than the last 5 editions. Most other factions basic troops are woefully behind in at least one of those categories and yet we spend more time talking about how Space Marines need more buffs than how Aspect warriors need more attention, or daemon troops, or Chaos Marines etc.
And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.
I am not following you, what do bolters have to do with basic orks being bad? Why should A marine players of multiple factions want their weapons be brought down to the level of a unit that ork players only take because they have to? B since went does it make any sense to compare stuff downwards.
So yeah orks are bad, but why should any non ork player care. And as you said it yourself there are far more factions using bolters then orks.
So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.
But he is not wrong. Look what units are run by marines right now. A lot of them don't even get the -1AP buff in tactical doctrine. And again you have GK, 1ksons, DG, csm and SoB who all use bolters and do not have doctrines vs SW, DA,IF,RG, WS, DW and marines who do. That is hardly 90% At best it is two thirds.
1: you missed my point entirely. You pointed out that Marine weapons didn't get the buffs other factions did, IE D3+3 dmg on lascannon equivalents etc. I am pointing out that this isn't a valid reason to buff bolters, or if you truly believe it is than lets start buffing everyones weapons and really kick up the power creep so that before long we have Marines again complaining that even with AoC their marines aren't durable enough.
2: Yes, this is being pedantic. I pulled 90% out of thin air, besides dudeface and yourself i doubt anyone took the 90% literally, arguing that point instead of the main point isn't a valid argument, its a red herring argument at best.
But here we go again down the long and circuitous path of Marine players complaining about things they themselves were in favor of a few months prior.
I jokingly made a list of previous editions where Marine players complained about their durability in the game and were then given durability buffs the next edition just to then complain that those buffs nerfed them in the dmg output category, and then GW buffed their dmg output they complained about durability. The worst part is, I think Marines are about the only faction GW listens to in regards to their complaints. I can't wait for the next buff to increase basic bolter fire to AP-2 or AP-1 and defeats AoC just for Marines to then come back and say "My marines aren't durable enough anymore!" This has been going on for over a decade now and it is 100% cyclical.
Basic Marines with their bolters are more durable than in the last 5 editions at least. They are more capable of dealing dmg than the last 5 editions. Most other factions basic troops are woefully behind in at least one of those categories and yet we spend more time talking about how Space Marines need more buffs than how Aspect warriors need more attention, or daemon troops, or Chaos Marines etc.
You've just spent however many posts and pages telling me I'm wrong for wanting quality of life improvements and buffs for my chaos marines because you were too pig headed to consider them a separate army.
Dudeface.....buffing chaos Marines DOES NOT mean buffing bolters.
Why are Marine bolters better than chaos bolters? Because they have a special rule or two. As opposed to being stupid and buffing EVERY bolter in the game, adjust the faction specific rules for those factions which need help....its almost like your enjoy being obtuse.
SemperMortis wrote: Dudeface.....buffing chaos Marines DOES NOT mean buffing bolters.
Why are Marine bolters better than chaos bolters? Because they have a special rule or two. As opposed to being stupid and buffing EVERY bolter in the game, adjust the faction specific rules for those factions which need help....its almost like your enjoy being obtuse.
Maybe remove their special rules given that all bolters need buffing and bake them into the weapon?
its almost like your enjoy being obtuse.
I'd add you're in a thread proposing the bolter as a whole is too weak, what do you expect, just make it better for some people and not others?
The question surely is "what are you trying to achieve".
Because its all very well saying "in my head cannon the boltgun is the greatest weapon in the universe" (citation needed) - but in practice for the health of the game Marines shouldn't be out-shooting units which are considerably softer and/or less punchy for their points.
Now it may upset you that Marines get outshot by fire warriors, skitarii & guardians - while getting out punched by boyz (Semper: I wish) but that's sort of how a game has to be. If you don't like that, go play 30k.
Tyel wrote: The question surely is "what are you trying to achieve".
Because its all very well saying "in my head cannon the boltgun is the greatest weapon in the universe" (citation needed) - but in practice for the health of the game Marines shouldn't be out-shooting units which are considerably softer and/or less punchy for their points.
Now it may upset you that Marines get outshot by fire warriors, skitarii & guardians - while getting out punched by boyz (Semper: I wish) but that's sort of how a game has to be. If you don't like that, go play 30k.
If the design paradigm for anything in power armour is "you are more survivable point for point then anything equivalent but a bit pillow fisted" that's cool, but it's not the status quo in the setting of the game necessarily, I'm not advocating that they become movie marines, but I'd be more than comfy with fewer but better bodies on the table.
I don't think anyone wants 30" Rapidfire 3 S5 Ap-2 D2 bolters or anything that daft, but currently when the bolt rifle and auto bolter exist the humble boltgun is almost entirely redundant in loyalist armies. Chaos marines and sisters don't get a choice, but they also don't get some/all the perks that the worst loyalist marine bolter has access to either so it would make sense to drag them up. If you got rid of combat doctrines for example and baked ap-1 onto a bolter, it's a small buff for loyalists who likely wouldn't use it still, but a big shot in the arm for chaos marines and sisters.
The thing is I think you could give bolters AP-1 and it wouldn't make the units holding them any more desirable to include them in your army.
Now you might say "I don't care, it would still help that 1~ near obligatory CSM/Sister squad you take to be CP efficient" but it seems an odd thing to be overly concerned with.
Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.
Insectum7 wrote:Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).
I get what you're saying, but their tabletop value should be much higher regardless. Attributes like strength, speed, skill, constitution, awareness, psychology, etc. are all represented to some extent on the tabletop, as are weaponry, armor, tactics... almost all of which are toned down for Marines.
A boltgun is just one aspect of this (and it could be argued that the suggestions in this thread are compromises, and that a fluffy bolter would be even more powerful). I can only imagine the ire if we went into everything else.
But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.
Yes, but this is the marine durability/lethality treadmill thread. It won't end in our lifetimes
Insectum7 wrote:Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).
I get what you're saying, but their tabletop value should be much higher regardless. Attributes like strength, speed, skill, constitution, awareness, psychology, etc. are all represented to some extent on the tabletop, as are weaponry, armor, tactics... almost all of which are toned down for Marines.
A boltgun is just one aspect of this (and it could be argued that the suggestions in this thread are compromises, and that a fluffy bolter would be even more powerful). I can only imagine the ire if we went into everything else.
But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.
Do they though? 7 tac marines in tac doctrine kill 2 Dire Avengers at 24". The remaining 8 (dual on the exarch since its free) move up and do 5 wounds. Seems a fairly even to me?
Tyran wrote: I guess he forgot that Marines have bolter discipline.
What kind of a comperation is it though. Who runs 7 or any tacticals at all. DA can at least be maybe run in some lists, if someone really wants to go easy on someone else or use older models. But no space marine player takes tacticals. If something with bolters is running around, then it is the infiltration dudes, because the regular intercessors, more often then not run armed with auto bolters, and those aren't rapid fire.
But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.
Bolters were a bad weapons, before the AoC change, when comparing to other armies basic weapons.
Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.
But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
Isn’t it marines who are to blame for bolters being worse?, it seems like they kept the same relative (or more) effectiveness against most things, but power armor suddenly got twice as effective against them.
Bolters were a bad weapons, before the AoC change, when comparing to other armies basic weapons.
Even ignoring that Orks are hardier, Eldar are faster, Necrons more advanced...
What are Custodes, if Marines are peak trans human?
But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
^Only if you're unaware of the long degradation of xenos units over time. And peak human doesn't mean peak-of-all-other-species. It just means peak human.
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
Except in 40k, humans aren't supposed to be "supreme" for any reason other than societal inertia. The Imperium is a society of degenerate, ignorant, baby-murdering fascists.
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
Except in 40k, humans aren't supposed to be "supreme" for any reason other than societal inertia. The Imperium is a society of degenerate, ignorant, baby-murdering fascists.
This. We *suck* and that's the point, to draw the attention of the viewer to how we can be better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: I wasn't expecting blatant HFY nonsense as a justification.
... ok I'm lying, I was expecting that, I just wasn't expecting someone to actually say it.
Tyran wrote: I guess he forgot that Marines have bolter discipline.
What kind of a comperation is it though. Who runs 7 or any tacticals at all. DA can at least be maybe run in some lists, if someone really wants to go easy on someone else or use older models. But no space marine player takes tacticals. If something with bolters is running around, then it is the infiltration dudes, because the regular intercessors, more often then not run armed with auto bolters, and those aren't rapid fire.
I would assume 7 because a tactical squad generally has 7 marines with boltguns (plus a heavy weapon, special weapon and sergeant with a pistol).
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
Except in 40k, humans aren't supposed to be "supreme" for any reason other than societal inertia. The Imperium is a society of degenerate, ignorant, baby-murdering fascists.
This. We *suck* and that's the point, to draw the attention of the viewer to how we can be better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: I wasn't expecting blatant HFY nonsense as a justification.
... ok I'm lying, I was expecting that, I just wasn't expecting someone to actually say it.
Naw, it's the same guys every time.
40k doesn't in any way have a 'how we can be better' message. Anything that ISN'T just straight up HFY, revels in the misery of the setting. Much to the audiences delight btw.
It's essentially a 20th century sanitized version of watching people getting eaten by lions in the coliseums. To the point where if anything is even a little bit positive or happy, the fandom collective loses their minds.
40k doesn't in any way have a 'how we can be better' message. Anything that ISN'T just straight up HFY, revels in the misery of the setting. Much to the audiences delight btw.
It's essentially a 20th century sanitized version of watching people getting eaten by lions in the coliseums. To the point where if anything is even a little bit positive or happy, the fandom collective loses their minds.
That doesn't mean it cannot be have a 'how we can be better' message, it just have to be a "do not do anything even close to the idiots that are being eaten by lions". A negative object lesson.
I don't think the starting point of this thread of the conversation had to do with any sort of ethical or political forms of supremacy, tbh. I thought it was just raw "might" of the Imperium.
But traditionally in 40k, base humans have sucked. All the major xenos threats have been better than humans, and then even Space Marines, the best humans could muster, were only vaguely on par with the threats, give or take a little.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.
Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.
I really like the current point ratios between Space Marines, Necron Warriors and Dire Avengers in terms of the raw number of models on the table if we ignore rules and pts efficiency and just look at how elite each faction should be. I just noticed that Dire Avengers get an extra shuriken catapult for free, damn piece of gak lazy game designers over at GW. I was going to pay for the next CA just to show my approval of continuing to put up pts for free but I don't want PL, I want pts and if someone wants to have a Exarch with a single gun instead of an Exarch with two guns then they should pay less points.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.
Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million.
Totally illogical way of thinking. Wars aren't fought by lining up everybody's armies and just going at it. Also, Tyranid Warriors probably number in the trillions, and they're still superior to marines. (although that divide has been shrinking too, ffs.)
vict0988 wrote: Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.
Eh, nah. Necrons' basic footsoldiers are supposed to approximately equal the super-soldiers of other factions. But GW has gone way too far with the bolter porn spank.
vict0988 wrote: Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.
Eh, nah. Necrons' basic footsoldiers are supposed to approximately equal the super-soldiers of other factions. But GW has gone way too far with the bolter porn spank.
The footsoldiers of what other factions? Kabalites, Genestealers and Dire Avengers? Certainly. Infantry Squads or Custodian Guard? No way. I am not expressing a fact, this is just my personal taste. I like being able to field 40 Warriors without that being a third of my list.
vict0988 wrote: Marines should be better than Necron Warriors, the number of one is legion, the number of the other is one measly million. Imagine playing Custodes into SM in a situation where the only things SM take is Centurions and Land Raiders, it would probably feel wrong. I don't want to be outnumbered by SM when I play Necrons.
Eh, nah. Necrons' basic footsoldiers are supposed to approximately equal the super-soldiers of other factions. But GW has gone way too far with the bolter porn spank.
The footsoldiers of what other factions? Kabalites, Genestealers and Dire Avengers? Certainly. Infantry Squads or Custodian Guard? No way. I am not expressing a fact, this is just my personal taste. I like being able to field 40 Warriors without that being a third of my list.
Are you saying infantry squads are supposed to be better than Warriors????
Necrodermis is just as durable or moreso than power armor, then can regenerate, necrons have no mind stuff to worry about, and the guns can vaporize huge swaths of everything. They’re stronger than marines, a lot is stronger than marines just on the infantry level. It takes just a single ork in melee to literally rip the limbs from a marine (this was mentioned word for word in a 30k ultramarines book).
They have other mind stuff to worry about, mostly that 99% of the Necron race are mindless automatons. Also the basic Necron Warriors may be made of necrodermis but they have a very light design so they cannot really leverage the durability of the Necrodermis compared to the notably more chunkier Immortal.
Individually Marines are still better because they are better trained and faster and actually have individual initiative, and that alone is far more important than individual firepower or durability.
And vs Orks, while Orks can rip apart a Marine in melee, the Marine is still smarter, more skilled, better trained and a way better shooter and they can leverage that to fight several times their number in Orks.
The thing about Marines isn't that they are the strongest or have the best guns, but that they are among the most skilled forces in the galaxy. They are an army made of FPS protagonists, and if you ever played a FPS then you know that in those games you are never the strongest or best armed thing in the game. e.g In Halo Master Chief can be teared apart limb by limb by pretty much any Brute, or shot to pieces by Jackals, and he is ridiculously outmatched by Hunters in both strength and guns. Yet Master Chief is still better than 99.999% of the aliens he encounters regardless if he is physically outmatched and/or outgunned (and always outnumbered) because he is just that good.
And the hard part is that it is really hard to translate the superior skill Astartes should have into the limited D6 format 40k runs.
I’m not saying marines can’t beat their enemies by being smarter and picking choice strike battles, but that marines compared to a lot of individual dudes are just sort of worse. Their strength comes from strategy mostly, their weapons are honestly subpar to most of what’s out there.
Maybe excepting deathwatch, because they use the xeno tech.
Honestly the appeal of marines to me is that you have well trained well armored genetically enhanced super soldiers. Even they cannot just dominate the galaxy and suffer losses/struggle against it.
An ork boy if they reach a power armored space marine can and will be a challenge with a chance to beat them. An ork nob or warboss they need to get shots on target because barring centuries of experience or extreme skill they are either going to lose or take squad casualties having to fall back on training and team fighting to overcome.
Necron tech literally dissolves power armor and the marine inside splitting it to composite atoms in fractions of a second. The real question is how anything stands up against the necrons as their tech is just next level. I recommend reading the twice dead king to learn more.
Eldar of all types are blindingly fast and have better tech, they fortunately are frail but plenty of times in books when the elfs get the ambush a few can threaten a whole space marine squad.
Tyranid claws rip through power armor. there are examples of genesteelers claws carving right through the back and out the front of terminator armor opening it like a tin can. The bigger ones are even more dangerous but again teamwork plus heavy weapons, melta bombs and often sacrifices allow space marines to sometimes triumph over the more deadly foe.
If space marines were more powerful than everything else it'd be a pretty boring universe really. That is why during the horus heresey outside the orks, space marines were bodying the galaxy. Necrons were asleep, Tyranids were off eating another galaxy, eldar existed and raided but small scale and avoided legions etc.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I’m not saying marines can’t beat their enemies by being smarter and picking choice strike battles, but that marines compared to a lot of individual dudes are just sort of worse. Their strength comes from strategy mostly, their weapons are honestly subpar to most of what’s out there.
Maybe excepting deathwatch, because they use the xeno tech.
"Just sort of worse" I'm not sure you can really make that argument these days. When an Intercessor is 2w, ignoring the first AP, and firing twice at 30" range at AP-2 in Tactical Doctrine. I gotta ask "Worse than what?"
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Necrodermis is just as durable or moreso than power armor, then can regenerate, necrons have no mind stuff to worry about, and the guns can vaporize huge swaths of everything. They’re stronger than marines, a lot is stronger than marines just on the infantry level. It takes just a single ork in melee to literally rip the limbs from a marine (this was mentioned word for word in a 30k ultramarines book).
Are you talking about the yoked 30k Orks led by the Ork Emps had to take out or just regular ones?
Necrons have to teleport back to the tomb or self destruct before they take too much damage, otherwise, their technology could fall into enemy hands. It's fair enough you want the ultra-Necrons. I know that's something a massive amount of players want because that's how they were statted at first and it goes with the whole Terminator thing were each one is unstoppable instead of an army of them being unstoppable together.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Necrodermis is just as durable or moreso than power armor, then can regenerate, necrons have no mind stuff to worry about, and the guns can vaporize huge swaths of everything. They’re stronger than marines, a lot is stronger than marines just on the infantry level. It takes just a single ork in melee to literally rip the limbs from a marine (this was mentioned word for word in a 30k ultramarines book).
Are you talking about the yoked 30k Orks led by the Ork Emps had to take out or just regular ones?
Necrons have to teleport back to the tomb or self destruct before they take too much damage, otherwise, their technology could fall into enemy hands. It's fair enough you want the ultra-Necrons. I know that's something a massive amount of players want because that's how they were statted at first and it goes with the whole Terminator thing were each one is unstoppable instead of an army of them being unstoppable together.
I’m talking standard non urlakk/beast led orks, and I don’t even want one necron taking out an entire army, just something more like the early codexes for them, I thought them beaming out prematurely was cool, at the upside of them just being better. It’s funny to me that guardsmen apparently stole gauss tech, and upgraded it into hammer of the emperor for just a straight up better version of the old gauss rule.
Tyel wrote: The question surely is "what are you trying to achieve".
Because its all very well saying "in my head cannon the boltgun is the greatest weapon in the universe" (citation needed) - but in practice for the health of the game Marines shouldn't be out-shooting units which are considerably softer and/or less punchy for their points.
Now it may upset you that Marines get outshot by fire warriors, skitarii & guardians - while getting out punched by boyz (Semper: I wish) but that's sort of how a game has to be. If you don't like that, go play 30k.
Personally, I want them to be more reflective of the lore. More powerful individually, but as Dudeface said, fewer bodies on the table to balance this out. IMO the stats of basic Astartes should be closer in some ways to those we see in Custodes troops (in terms of skill and armour anyway)... but separately to that, and being more grounded here, I think the bolter could do with a foundational buff across all factions who use it. Ditching supplementary, temporary, faction-specific doctrines and the like, and elevating the basic weapon itself for everyone who uses it.
And I think there's a big difference between a Marine doing more damage than another model and a Marine being more efficient than another model. If you look at base damage, yes, the boltgun is purported to be a devastating brute-force weapon, which is why I suggested a D2 change beyond just the AP1. Especially Astartes-sized bolters, which I could even see getting their own profile and going up +1S as well (if some other races' infantry weapons were also bumped up by +1 S, like pulse weapons). Something like a shuriken catapult shouldn't have the same Strength as as a boltgun (although more shots, greater mobility from Assault, even greater AP are a different story). If we're talking about points efficiency though, then yes, troops like the humble Guardsman and the less humble Dire Avenger should be out-shooting Marines, and things like Hormagaunts and Orks should be out-meleeing them.
Tyran wrote:Maybe instead of buffing bolters we should talk about buffing lascannons/missile launchers/autocannons/etc.
Well people have brought up the D3+3 lascannon adjustment other factions have received, which seems like a no-brainer. As for other random ideas, the lascannon could potentially get multiple profiles due to its adjustable power levels, e.g. its current 'one shot per battery pack' maximum-power profile, and a Heavy 2 lower-power one with reduced S, AP and/or Range. I've also suggested elsewhere that maybe a characteristic of las weapons could be a hit bonus of some kind, due to their lack of recoil and excelllent ballistics (negligible delay, flat trajectory, etc).
Flakk missiles (an anti-flyer option additional to frag and krak) could be interesting for missile launchers. Or giving them a fixed BS of 2+ (aren't they supposed to be guided?). Or even giving them an option for other specialised warheads, like melta or plasma. If they ever bring back armour facing, the missile launcher could take inspiration from the real-life Javelin and always attack vehicles' rear armour.
As for autocannons... IMO they're a jack-of-all-trades weapon that kinda fails to stand out among other Imperial heavy weapon options. If they are kept around (you could pretty much just fold their current profile into the lascannon as an alternative firing profile), maybe they could be made something like Heavy 2D3, Blast, D1 (apparently in the lore the Imperium lost the ability to produce explosive autocannon rounds... but if they can make Primaris and heavy bolt rounds, they can figure out how to re-add explosives to a shell). Although then you have it competing more with mortars.
(Incidentally, I wonder what multiple-shot GLs and mortars would be like at Heavy 2D6.)
But my question here would be "marines should be better vs. Who?". Because if you told me that they weren't lethal enough against Guardsmen, I'm on board. But right now Marines seem to wipe the floor with other models like Dire Avengers, and I'm just not cool with that. LOTS of other units which were more historically on par with Marines have plummeted in comparison.
Space marines are an example of peak trans human efficiency and the proof of human supremacy over all other races. They should be better then everyone.
Well not everyone, but they do represent human soldiery at its zenith. Obviously Custodes are more powerful, and far more human (let's not forget that Marines are indoctrinated, neutered, joyless zealots who at times more closely resemble automatons than regular human beings)... but Custodes were never intended to be legionary soldiers numbering in the millions.
I agree that, one-on-one with almost any other infantry, a Space Marine should generally come out on top.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:Ya know, back in the day a necron was better than a space marine, because they are. And for the most part everyone else does at least one thing better than a marine, orks melee and charge better, eldar are more agile, and guardsmen multiply infinitely.
IIRC, in 4th Ed they had the exact same profile pretty much, but half the initiative, resurrection on a 4+ against non-ID weapons, and wound rolls of 6 with gauss weapons always succeeding?
I love the idea of them being slow and tough, with extremely powerful weaponry... just this relentless, eerie, near-unstoppable advance.
Just some thoughts in relation to the other discussions about necrons.
It would be cool to see all gauss weapons becoming Assault, and auto-wounding on hit rolls of 6 (basically getting HotE, which makes way more sense for gauss weapons), or to-wound rolls automatically succeeding on a 4+ rather than a 6, or even auto-wounding in the same way that flamers auto-hit (but vice versa: gauss weapons only rolling to hit and flamers only rolling to wound).
As for the Necrons themselves... how would people feel about them being M4"? Or more outlandish combos of T and Sv (Necron Warriors with T3 Sv2+, T6 Sv 5+)?
Reanimation protocols would be cool if you just... kept rolling every turn for every destroyed model in a unit. None of this pooled dice stuff, just a flat 4+ or 5+ roll and a model comes back with one wound. Your warrior got destroyed turn one? You can keep rolling to bring it back in turn 4, it's just taking longer to reassemble. Keep trying long enough and the unit can fully reform.
If a unit dies, place a counter down where the last model was removed... and continue rolling reanimation protocols as you normally would if that unit were still alive? Any models from a fully destroyed unit that successfully reanimate are placed over/around their corresponding counter.
Reanimated models that began the game with multiple Wounds could even keep rolling reanimation protocols to regain them (max of 1 regained Wound per turn).
Autocannons need a pinning type of rule. For example, the anti Overwatch rule that Suppressors have should just be standard with any Autocannon type weapon.
I would split the Autocannon into 2 separate profiles:
Infantry-portable: Heavy 2, S7 AP1 D3
Vehicle Mounted: Heavy 2D3, S7, AP1, D3 (What's on the predator).
Changing the Infantry profile to flat damage 3 makes it a choice over a HB. Less shots but more damage (and less affected by -1D), or more shots, but less damage. But overall, they would have the potential damage output.
Changing the vehicle mounted profile means an Autocannon might actually be worth taking.
GW likes random rolls, because it gives the players an illusion of agency and creates those awesome gaming moments, that are suppose to give a dopamine kick high enough to overshadow those prior 99 not very fun moments.
brainpsyk wrote: I would split the Autocannon into 2 separate profiles:
Infantry-portable: Heavy 2, S7 AP1 D3
Vehicle Mounted: Heavy 2D3, S7, AP1, D3 (What's on the predator).
Changing the Infantry profile to flat damage 3 makes it a choice over a HB. Less shots but more damage (and less affected by -1D), or more shots, but less damage. But overall, they would have the potential damage output.
Changing the vehicle mounted profile means an Autocannon might actually be worth taking.
Highly agree on D3 autocannons they are after all a a fast firing light anti tank weapon. Id probably go one further and have the predator version of the autocannon maybe be strength 8, while the other tank autocannons being the s7 version (hydra with quad autocannons, castigator which functions like a quad autocannon for some reason)
and iv been of the mind that nearly all infantry portable heavy weapons should be weaker than their vehicle counter points. take the landraider for example, its lascannon power generators are so massive it takes up transport capacity and.... has the exact same stats as a lascannon carried by a marine or a guard weapon team.(sure lore wise it could probably fire all day but that has 0 tabletop representation) (secondary weapons could probably stay equivilent, the storm bolters/heavy bolters/stubbers etc)
I am not sure using the Heavy Bolter as a set point for an updated Autocannon is that great. The HB already feels like it's falling behind, especially when you compare it to a Grav-cannon at generally the same price point (at least for infantry heavy weapons). Frankly, it might just be that the Grav-cannon is undercosted and needs to go to +15 points or that Heavy Bolter/Autocannon need to go down to +5 (for infantry anyway). But then Storm Bolters would also need to go down in price... which means Combi- probably need to go down as well.
In a different thread, I went through some common SM heavy weapons and compared them for shooting at Armor (specifically T8 3+ save), and one of the surprising results was that the Lascannon was worse at shooting Armor(actually, anything) than the Grav-cannon. Anyway, the Twin Autocannon scored barely higher than a Heavy Bolter against T8, but that isn't too surprising, since both the HB and AC are wounding on 5s against T8 and have the same AP and damage, so it comes down to number of shots.
It feels kinda weird, because the (current) Autocannon feels like it should be more of an Anti-tank weapon than the Heavy Bolter, but performs worse. Against T7, the (current) Autocannon breaks even with the Heavy Bolter, and is better against T6, but worse against anything T5 or less again. Bumping the Autocannon to Flat 3 means the tie is at T8, AC better at T5-7, and still technically better at T3&4, but only if the target has 3 wounds. Grav-cannon still wins all Toughness on 3+ save base until you start shooting at 4+ base save (ie losing the Grav-rule and going to flat 1 damage), and even then breaks even with HB for all Toughness. The extra 2 AP and 1 extra shot makes up for having half damage.
Amour of Contempt came out pretty much right as I last posted to that thread, but since the AC and HB have the same AP they are affected equally, and the comparison to the GC is the only thing that changes. And by that, I mean the flat 3 Autocannon only beats the GC against T5(and T3) 4+ save w/AoC and 3 or more wounds... but I have no idea what would have either profile. Once you get to where the extra AP from GC isn't doing anything, the HB and AC start winning again.
Comparing the flat 3 damage Autocannon to a Las Fusil from an Eliminator is actually a pretty good comparison if you ignore the 2+ BS. The additional -2 AP really makes up for having half the shots against AoC armies, and the higher strength makes the Las Fusil better for T4,7&8. Autocannon is better against armies with a weaker base save. Otherwise, it feels balanced. The Las Fusil would have been a 0.833 on the benchmark T8 3+ thread (again, shooting at 3+ BS, 2+ would be 1.04).
The Suppressors Accelerator Autocannon's extra shot makes it math out to the same as the 2 shot flat 3 damage Autocannon (unless there is -1 damage, or you overkill on flat 3) and as we found out is roughly the same as a Las Fusil. So comparing 90 pt Eliminators (3x Las Fusil) to 100 pt Suppressors, you have 2+ BS/Concealed Positions and Camo Cloak(and phobos keyword) on one side vs 12" Fly(and death from above), Suppressing Fire (and +10 points) on the other. I think they dropped the Suppressors down to 90 points they would be more balanced and people might start taking them. IE: 30 points a model, though you still might need to give them the Centurion's Decimator Protocols to not take the -1 to shooting after moving since... moving and shooting seems to be their thing. And open up the unit sizes on all of the 3/unit Primaris to 3-6 please! Feel like almost wasting a slot otherwise.
^The Grav-Cannon is definitely undercosted, especially when compared to the Heavy Bolter. Even with its buff, the Heavy Bolter hasn't made it into any of my lists if there's another option.
Yeah, the Grav Cannon has been a better AT weapon than the Lascannon since the start if 8th, lol. Lascannon needs a buff, big time.
I feel like if they moved Lascannon to d3+2 (so not better than Cognis Lascannons which get Assault and d3+3 damage), still brings the average damage to 4 on the Lascannon, which is what it needs to break even with the Grav-cannon on average. It'll always one-shot Terminators/Gravis if it gets the damage through (without a FNP), so you don't have situations where a regular marine shrugs off a failed save on a Lascannon. 1/6th of the time d3+2 is worse than d6, but 1/3rd is equal and half the time it is better.
Then balance the heavy weapons into three groups. Heavy Bolter at +5 points (along with the flat 3 Autocannon, Accelerator Autocannon, Assault Cannon, Las Fusil, and Heavy Flamer), a take-all-comers(ie, dual-statline) at probably +10 points (Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon, Helfrost Cannon, etc), and d3+2 Lascannon at +15 points (with Grav-cannon, Multi-melta, etc). Though I feel like Lascannon needs d3+3 and Grav-cannon needs a little something else to compete with a MM.
Special/Combi Weapons, Flamer/Grav-gun/Storm Bolter down to +2-3 points, Meltagun/Plasma gun/Combi-Flamer/Combi-Grav down to +5, Combi-Melta/Combi-Plasma to +8.
The funny thing is, I wouldn't drop the cost of weapons because of their drop in effectiveness due to AoC. That's immediately starting the power creep again, and negates the whole point of AoC.
Also, before we can start to balance the weapon, we have to define the platform that holds the weapon and the target type. A LasCannon/MM/ML on a guardsman is vastly different than one on a Marine, and still a bit different on a Marine devastator squad bringing 4 of them vs. a Tac Squad bringing 1. The same goes for the target, in that a HB, while it has play into T6+, it's primary target is T5-, while the LC/MM's primary target is T7+, and anything T8+ pays a premium just for existing (I'm not bitter as a Guard player... GW).
Exactly, the point of AoC is to make certain armies more tanky. So people DON'T need to hurt units from these armies more efficiently, especially those who even benefit from AoC themselves.
And in all fairness all those weapons look already pretty cheap to me.
The footsoldiers of what other factions? Kabalites, Genestealers and Dire Avengers? Certainly. Infantry Squads or Custodian Guard? No way. I am not expressing a fact, this is just my personal taste. I like being able to field 40 Warriors without that being a third of my list.
Approximately equal to Space Marines is where I was going with this. They're supposed to be an incredibly technologically advanced race, not some chumps for the Astartes to slaughter en masse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: They have other mind stuff to worry about, mostly that 99% of the Necron race are mindless automatons. Also the basic Necron Warriors may be made of necrodermis but they have a very light design so they cannot really leverage the durability of the Necrodermis compared to the notably more chunkier Immortal.
Citation needed on their lack of ability to leverage durability, since historically they've been tougher than marines. Until recently.
Tyran wrote: Individually Marines are still better because they are better trained and faster and actually have individual initiative, and that alone is far more important than individual firepower or durability.
Sure, but Marines have more firepower *and* more durability than a Necron now.
Tyran wrote: Individually Marines are still better because they are better trained and faster and actually have individual initiative, and that alone is far more important than individual firepower or durability.
Sure, but Marines have more firepower *and* more durability than a Necron now.
Intercessors have more firepower* a tactical marine still has about equal.
To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.
The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.
Eonfuzz wrote: Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines
But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.
If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.
Eonfuzz wrote: Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines
But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.
If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.
some bloke wrote: To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.
The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.
They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?
Eonfuzz wrote: Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines
But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.
If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.
If they gave up doctrines it's a flat nerf all round, AoC basically counters doctrines, but against every other faction in the game it still has relevance and AoC doesn't do enough to warrant giving up the doctrines imo.
Plus there are more marines who use bolters and don't have doctrines, then marines who have them. The argument that bolters are okey, because of that set of rules, would only be true sometimes.
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
I'm ok with it, even with a small points bump attached. It would actually reduce efficiency against the chaff/light infantry due to fewer marines on the table but make them feel more impactful against the elite infantry/other marines they're meant to be the surgical strike against.
In all seriousness, I do think this is something of an issue with GW wanting to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand, it wants Marines to be super-duper-soldiers, comparable to Tyranid Warriors. On the other, it doesn't want them to actually pay Tyranid Warrior prices.
I think if you were willing to move basic Marines to the 30-40pt range, you could do a lot more in terms of giving them strong standard weapons, in addition to their extra wound.
Of course, this then creates a different problem in that players want even the basic Marine to be super-elite, yet that makes it increasingly hard to distinguish the actual elites. Think for a moment about all the different levels of Marine - you've got Scouts, Tactical Marines (elite), you've got Grey Knights (The elite of the elite), you've got Vanguard Veterans (The elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Terminators (The elite of the elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Custodian Guard (elite, elite, elite, elite, elite!).
Point being, one of them has to be at the bottom and the higher you start them the harder it becomes to distinguish the other thousand or so ranks of Marine without getting into ridiculous levels.
It's like if you wanted an army with the same variation as the Imperial Guard, but every unit has to be a tank. And because they're all tanks, they all need to be awesome (obviously, because tanks are awesome). However, this leads to obvious issues wherein you either use the Leman Russ as a benchmark in its current position (as one of the stronger units in the book), and thus have to have some tiny, Dalek-sized tanks with the equivalent of Flakk armour and Lasguns to fill in for Infantry Squads. Or else you have Leman Russ tanks filling the roll of Infantry Squads, in which case your actual Leman Russ equivalents would be in the region of Reaver Titans.
In all seriousness, I do think this is something of an issue with GW wanting to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand, it wants Marines to be super-duper-soldiers, comparable to Tyranid Warriors. On the other, it doesn't want them to actually pay Tyranid Warrior prices.
I think if you were willing to move basic Marines to the 30-40pt range, you could do a lot more in terms of giving them strong standard weapons, in addition to their extra wound.
Of course, this then creates a different problem in that players want even the basic Marine to be super-elite, yet that makes it increasingly hard to distinguish the actual elites. Think for a moment about all the different levels of Marine - you've got Scouts, Tactical Marines (elite), you've got Grey Knights (The elite of the elite), you've got Vanguard Veterans (The elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Terminators (The elite of the elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Custodian Guard (elite, elite, elite, elite, elite!).
Point being, one of them has to be at the bottom and the higher you start them the harder it becomes to distinguish the other thousand or so ranks of Marine without getting into ridiculous levels.
It's like if you wanted an army with the same variation as the Imperial Guard, but every unit has to be a tank. And because they're all tanks, they all need to be awesome (obviously, because tanks are awesome). However, this leads to obvious issues wherein you either use the Leman Russ as a benchmark in its current position (as one of the stronger units in the book), and thus have to have some tiny, Dalek-sized tanks with the equivalent of Flakk armour and Lasguns to fill in for Infantry Squads. Or else you have Leman Russ tanks filling the roll of Infantry Squads, in which case your actual Leman Russ equivalents would be in the region of Reaver Titans.
We just need to expand the scope of the stats ranges, refine the breakpoints and yes, a 30-odd point marine facing off against multiple cultists or whatever is fine by me, shrink army sizes back down a little across the board, everyone wins.
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
I don't like the idea of Damage 2 bolters. It has a knock on effect to mid-Toughness units throughout the rest of 40k. Very honestly, as a player whose #1 army is CSM closely followed by #2 being Primaris, I am extremely happy where space marines are right now.
I think space marines (all to most factions of them) are in a pretty good spot in 9th. The offensive ability is a tad be low if a player doesn't make use of both ranged and melee, but if applied properly, marine offensive is good enough (which is exactly where I want marines). Marine durability is in a fantastic place. It largely provides the durability to leverage ranged and melee, and more importantly to me; it provides a cushion for new players to make mistakes and recover from them more readily.
At casual level, marines easily make it to Turn 5 or the end of the game before either side is tabled. The low offense and high defense beefs up the importance of maneuver with marines to make use of everything they have and not just rely on shooting, melee or durably. It takes a combination of all 3 dependent of type of subfaction, marine, unit and opponent. Which I believe grading on 9th rules complicatedness, marines still are pretty simple even if they have several bespoke rules now. Because marines are rather durable (especially in marine on marine games) it is important to get them in position quickly, but carefully, as they can be tough (but far from impossible) to shift.
I even think Armor of Contempt was (probably accidental) an excellent addition to the meta. As AP -1/-2 really were some of the most efficient weapons. And if it weren't for marines being so common, likely still would be. However, since marines are so popular players have to rework their armies to account for marines (who likely could still beat, but at a lower overall score) forcing a wider range of coverage.
In short, while I haven't playing 40k for all that long, marines have never felt better to play that right now for me.
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
'some other multi-wound targets' being all tanks and monsters
The defensive buff/offensive buff cycle is already terrible. (2w-> better guns-> armor of contempt). Don't add another step to the black spiral dance.
In all seriousness, I do think this is something of an issue with GW wanting to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand, it wants Marines to be super-duper-soldiers, comparable to Tyranid Warriors. On the other, it doesn't want them to actually pay Tyranid Warrior prices.
I think if you were willing to move basic Marines to the 30-40pt range, you could do a lot more in terms of giving them strong standard weapons, in addition to their extra wound.
Of course, this then creates a different problem in that players want even the basic Marine to be super-elite, yet that makes it increasingly hard to distinguish the actual elites.
The cynic in me suspects that the main reason GW wants cheaper Marines because that means more plastic sold.
As for unit diversity, I get what you mean, but at the end of the day I think there's enough wiggle room (and there are different mechanisms GW could use to increase the wiggle room, like using the current wound chart for hit and armour save rolls).
And Custodes are evidence that GW isn't averse to 50pt-per-model troops (IMO a Sagittarium Guard's stats are actually closer than something like an Intercessor's to what a lore-acurate Marine's should look like, ignoring things like disintegrator beams and 4++ invulns).
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Eonfuzz wrote: Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines
What? Armor of Contempt doesn't affect bolters right now
I think he means AP2 with Tac Doctrine. Might be tongue-in-cheek.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:In short, while I haven't playing 40k for all that long, marines have never felt better to play that right now for me.
I get where you're coming from, but I feel like that's a very tabletop-centric perspective. You mentioned Marines being low-offence, especially against other Marines... to me that seems to run contrary to the lore (especially the bloodshed of the Horus Heresy). Marines are supposed to be offensively-powerful (and boltguns are supposed to be one of the most feared small arms in the galaxy). The primary weakness of a Marine army should be its low numbers and poor tabletop coverage IMO, not low offence.
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
'some other multi-wound targets' being all tanks and monsters
Ya, but less points-efficient vs other targets (assuming a proportionate points increase).
Voss wrote: The defensive buff/offensive buff cycle is already terrible. (2w-> better guns-> armor of contempt). Don't add another step to the black spiral dance.
Only because GW keep getting things wrong. A buff to the bolter would be more justifiable than many of the buffs received by other small arms, e.g. the fleshborer, or HotE (even if AM did need a boost of some kind).
They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?
Pulse rifles should, because Tau actually do science. For shootas, part of their downside is that the low Ork BS is also representative of their weapons technology - so you could describe a shoota as more powerful or more rapid firing than a boltgun but less accurate. Agree on Fleshborers though.
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
Terrible idea. Would make marines' basic weapons too powerful.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.
Yeah I was thinking that for Gauss weapons too, just give them a permanent +1 to wound.
some bloke wrote: To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.
The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.
They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?
A Pulse Rifle should 100% be better than a Bolter. Absolutely. How can you even ask that question?
A Fleshborer should about a short range Bolter. A Shuriken Catapult should be a sidegrade to a Bolter, roughly equivalent.
They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?
Re-enter the Dudeface with a ridiculous comparison. "Shootas are better than Bolters!" i mean yeah...if you ignore all the rules both factions which carry those weapons get....and if you ignore Ballistic skill. But hey, let build some more strawman arguments to push a narrative that bolters need more firepower.
Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:In short, while I haven't playing 40k for all that long, marines have never felt better to play that right now for me.
I get where you're coming from, but I feel like that's a very tabletop-centric perspective. You mentioned Marines being low-offence, especially against other Marines... to me that seems to run contrary to the lore (especially the bloodshed of the Horus Heresy). Marines are supposed to be offensively-powerful (and boltguns are supposed to be one of the most feared small arms in the galaxy). The primary weakness of a Marine army should be its low numbers and poor tabletop coverage IMO, not low offence.
It certainly is a very tabletop-centric perspective. The first thing to remember is 40k lore pretty much has every faction upsell itself in the lore. Space marines being the worst of this. The next thing to remember is this isn't an TTRPG and, contrary to some people's opinion, space marines aren't the Player Character faction with most, if not all, other factions being NPCs. The game should be fair to all factions. So space marines simply can't be good at everything. And space marines aren't the big dogs (as if they ever were) of the setting. The more space marines are pushed up, the more specialty marines (like Grey Knights) and factions like Custodes have to uplifted to compensate. Even something like Necron Immortals should probably better than the standard Tactical/Intercessor to both give 'crons that old 'better than you' feel and have a wider separation between Immortals (hype-elite) and Warriors (horde) in army construction.
As much as I don't want it to matter, the fact that space marines are so popular really does mean some concessions have to be made for gameplay. Having marines something like 6 times more expensive than a guardsman is probably just too much. It could create game inflation (which I believe is largely the players and not GW who drive this), as 2000pt games feel like 750pt games for marines. Who would be far more susceptible to dice swings then and/or no apparent game state change. Being that marines are a large chunk of the player base, this could easily mean games bloating up 3000-4000pts so marine players can bring, 'everything they need.' Which hurts the horde armies the most as they have to fill their armies with even more stuff.
So concession have to be made for gameplay. Because if we try to get marine bolters as killy as you think. Then all the Necron weapons probably need to be updated, then the Tau and Eldar. And so on and so on. And we are right back where we started, but with bigger numbers and more rules bloat.
For me, I don't want the fluff to be detached from the game, but I certainly don't want the fluff in the driver's seat either. I want all factions to have a fair shake at things, and nearly as importantly, force players to work for their wins. That's one of the big reasons I like space marines right now. I have to know how to position, maneuver and a commit my Chaos/Primaris marines at just the right moment to make the best use of their shooting and their melee to have the amount of offensive power to accomplish my in-game goals.
It's why, for as bloaty as Shock/Hateful Assault is, I like it far better than a simple +1 Attack. Because it is rare in my experience that marines finish enemy targets in melee. So there is a real judgement call to whether I commit my marines somewhere they may get bogged down as melee power is reduced after the first onslaught. And on the other side, do I charge into quagmired marines re-vitalizing their melee power. Granted, it is often not much of a choice, but enough of one to keep a bloaty rule like Shock/Hateful Assault around to me.
And why, in general, I hate strike first/last rules (beyond being confusing) and a lot of stratagems. It is easily gained power. I worked really hard to plan and position my units to get that charge just to have the benefit 'turned off' seemingly at a whim. And I want in game power to come from tough choices and not easy play. Marines are always going to be kinda easy to play, so anytime there is a little nuance in the play style, it is greatly appreciated by me. For I am, and likely always will be a space marine player at heart.
some bloke wrote: To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.
The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.
They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?
Eonfuzz wrote: Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines
But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.
If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.
If they gave up doctrines it's a flat nerf all round, AoC basically counters doctrines, but against every other faction in the game it still has relevance and AoC doesn't do enough to warrant giving up the doctrines imo.
Base profile of the weapon is half the story. Space marines shoot better than all of the things wielding those weapons - bolters are worth more in the hands of a marine.
The problem is we have these two conflicting things:
1: Marines are worth a dozen guardsmen, their guns shoot explosive rounds which can bring down tyranid monsters and light vehicles, and their armour shields them from all but the most dangerous firepower.
2: Players want to have more than 10 models on the field when playing marines.
fluff marines will never match the game because marines are meant to be better. Bolters should be more powerful for fluff reasons, but for balance I can't see improving AP, damage, range, or shots to be anything but bad for the balance of the game, because there are so many of them in a marine army. Changing other weapons which appear less frequently is another matter, because they aren't the basic weapon.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.
Correct, which is the point Dude likes to ignore as often as possible. You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.
You said that as if the devourer, which historically was better than the bolter, wasn't nerfed into the ground while termagants were inflated in price
IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.
'some other multi-wound targets' being all tanks and monsters
Ya, but less points-efficient vs other targets (assuming a proportionate points increase).
Is anyone in fact assuming that? Or are they just decreeing they need to be better because reasons?
Voss wrote: The defensive buff/offensive buff cycle is already terrible. (2w-> better guns-> armor of contempt). Don't add another step to the black spiral dance.
Only because GW keep getting things wrong. A buff to the bolter would be more justifiable than many of the buffs received by other small arms, e.g. the fleshborer, or HotE (even if AM did need a boost of some kind).
No, it wouldn't be more justifiable. It would be a part of 'getting things wrong.'
If you think they keep doing wrong, having faith that they'd do this right is... weird.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.
Correct, which is the point Dude likes to ignore as often as possible. You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.
The bit you choose to ignore semper:
Guard sergeant - bs 4+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Sister of battle - bs 3+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Heretic astartes - bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Tactical marine -bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- (unless its turn 2-3) d1
All the same weapon.
Edit: in hindsight I can see how you might feel this backs your angle up, but my point is the *gun* isn't good enough to function beyond the bearer. You constantly just point at the marine version and go "look it's good enough" but then marines don't use it and everyone else who can doesn't have multiple layers of supplementary buffs.
Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?
The point is marines don't even use a bolter most of the time, they use auto bolters or bolt rifles. It simply isn't a good weapon even firing twice if stationary with ap-1 for 2 turns. Take those 2 rules off (which aren't part of the bolter anyway) and it sucks.
Regards the pulse rifle above as well, they used to have 6" more range, +1 strength and importantly ap5 same as the bolter. They now have 12" more range, +1 strength and ap-1 where as the bolter innately has 0.
It should be better agreed, but not by the margin it is.
And space marines aren't the big dogs (as if they ever were) of the setting. The more space marines are pushed up, the more specialty marines (like Grey Knights) and factions like Custodes have to uplifted to compensate. Even something like Necron Immortals should probably better than the standard Tactical/Intercessor to both give 'crons that old 'better than you' feel and have a wider separation between Immortals (hype-elite) and Warriors (horde) in army construction.
This especially, the more the Marines are made to be good, the more other factions have to be uplifted to match them. And then suddenly, they fight normal humans and well, the humans should get their teeth kicked in with no chances whatsoever. How fun is that for the players of that faction, hm? Much better Marines are kept weaker, and the rest won't have to be cranked up to match them, making any sort of victories by Guardsmen feel almost unfluffy at some point.
As for Marine lore itself, it's wildly inconsistent, I have read books where five Marines (a named Reclusiarch and his retinue) get overwhelmed by 30 or so Orks, and need militiamen (and a Stormtrooper) to rescue them. Or another where a squad of ten Kasrkins defeat two Traitor Marines at the cost of 3 men. You still have the Marine > Human dynamic, but it's not so huge a difference that it makes you question why having human soldiers at all, if everything is so dangerous out there.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.
You said that as if the devourer, which historically was better than the bolter, wasn't nerfed into the ground while termagants were inflated in price
If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.
If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.
It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.
You said that as if the devourer, which historically was better than the bolter, wasn't nerfed into the ground while termagants were inflated in price
If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.
I said creep because I mentioned that I think the poison special rule would work for fleshborers, but +1 to wound on s4 is going to work better in all cases.
If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.
It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).
Dudeface wrote: Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?
I mean yeah, Astartes are supposed to be a bit more skilled than Sororitas, especially given they likely have even more experience than them.
If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.
It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).
Creep or no, it's still churn for the churn god.
Good thing 99% of the player base has no idea how to differentiate Tyranid guns. They would totally believe me if they told them those devourers are actually venom cannons, which helps mitigate churn with Tyranids.
Dudeface wrote: Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?
I mean yeah, Astartes are supposed to be a bit more skilled than Sororitas, especially given they likely have even more experience than them.
Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.
Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.
Just be willing to bite the bullet when their cost increases dramatically.
How much of a Tactical Marine's point budget is the Boltgun? 1 pt? Maybe less?
Compare a Sternguard to a Tactical Marine. 20 points vs 18 points each with the same stat line, except +1 Attack/Leadership for Sternguard, let's call it +1 budget point for the upgraded statline.
Special Issue Boltgun vs Boltgun, SIB has +6" range, and AP-2 over the regular Boltgun. An additional AP-2 against Marines is worth 50%-100% additional damage (AoC drops it to 50% since Boltgun is AP0 and can't get worse). Sure, Tactical has Obj Sec and Melta Bomb and Sternguard can take more combi/special/heavy weapons, but that should swing the budget further toward Tactical being more efficient since the weapon options have point costs to balance them already. So +1 budget point for the Special Issue Boltgun.
So, potentially adding 50% or doubling a Tactical Marine's Boltgun damage only worth +1 point (and frankly, I'd still rather have the +1 Attack/Leadership). 19 point Tactical Marines are still cheaper than Intercessors and tied for Assault Intercessors as the cheapest Troop (barring chapter specifics). You could easily give Tactical Marines RF3 24" S4 AP0 D1 Boltguns and budget them at 20 points a model... and still don't think they would be better than Auto Intercessors. About the same shooting (strat to double shoot, vs half range/not moving) but Intercessors have +1A each which is worth something. Frankly, a 5-man RF3 Tacticals at 20 points/each is still inferior shooting to a 3-man Bike Squad with 2x Flamer and a Combi-Flamer for 110 points unless they are in half range or standing still.
But GW likely doesn't adhere well to point budgets, because the Storm Bolter (ie a double Boltgun) that we just showed is worth maybe 2 budget points total (so +1 point if upgrading from Boltgun) costs +5 points (so budgeted at 6 points). Sternguard can take Storm Bolters at a cheaper +3 points (4 budget points), but it isn't even worth a full +1 point upgrade for them, it is more of a sidegrade really since they give up their SIB for it.
If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.
It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).
Creep or no, it's still churn for the churn god.
Good thing 99% of the player base has no idea how to differentiate Tyranid guns. They would totally believe me if they told them those devourers are actually venom cannons, which helps mitigate churn with Tyranids.
Sure you can always counts-as, but some(many) like to stick to WYSIWYG, which is also the competetive standard.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.
Correct, which is the point Dude likes to ignore as often as possible. You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.
The bit you choose to ignore semper:
Guard sergeant - bs 4+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
That is an upgrade for the Sgt, hes nominally equipped with a laspistol and chainsword. So you used to be paying a point for this. Which, surprising basically nobody, until it became free, nobody did this since it was just a waste of a point.
Dudeface wrote: Sister of battle - bs 3+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Which is why sisters use their required troop slots to equip special weapons and use them as ablative wounds.
Dudeface wrote: Heretic astartes - bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Yep, on a relatively cheap model. This is significantly better than the Shoota and better than a lot of other troops in the game even now.
Dudeface wrote: Tactical marine -bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- (unless its turn 2-3) d1
All the same weapon.
Again yes. Still better than most other factions. So instead of buffing Bolters acros the board you can give sisters of battle something if you really wanted to, but they don't even need it since those bolter squads are just ablative wounds for special weapons.
Dudeface wrote: Edit: in hindsight I can see how you might feel this backs your angle up, but my point is the *gun* isn't good enough to function beyond the bearer. You constantly just point at the marine version and go "look it's good enough" but then marines don't use it and everyone else who can doesn't have multiple layers of supplementary buffs.
I constantly point to it because its the most common army in the game that takes bolters. Hell, its the most common army in the game full stop. The VAST majority of bolter bearers are sitting with BS3, 2 shots at 24' and -1AP for 2 turns, that is pretty damn good. You can point to fringe cases like the aforementioned Imperial Guard Sgt, but that is such an outlier that its ridiculous to even look at, not to mention its a FREE upgrade for them now.
Dudeface wrote: Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?
The point is marines don't even use a bolter most of the time, they use auto bolters or bolt rifles. It simply isn't a good weapon even firing twice if stationary with ap-1 for 2 turns. Take those 2 rules off (which aren't part of the bolter anyway) and it sucks.
Why is it acceptable for a Tac marine to be better than a sisters of battle? Points for starters, beyond that fluff and beyond that because Marine players bitched and moaned loud and often enough that eventually GW gave into them.
Dudeface wrote: Regards the pulse rifle above as well, they used to have 6" more range, +1 strength and importantly ap5 same as the bolter. They now have 12" more range, +1 strength and ap-1 where as the bolter innately has 0.
It should be better agreed, but not by the margin it is.
The Pulse Rifle used to have +6 range and +1 strength over the Bolter, their shtick was that they were better at range than Marines and every other faction. Marines now have a 30' weapon as well as -1AP on a standard troops choice, and thanks to the game getting more durable *looks at 2W Marines* Tau firewarriors needed a buff, and unlike Orkz who got a nerf, Firewarriors got +6inches of range and -1AP both upgrades are good for them, they also took a 1pt increase in their base cost to make up for it...you know...compared to the 3pts Marines paid to get a 2nd wound, AoC, Bolter, Angels of whatever the hell it is and other special rules.
And why did those Firewarriors get that upgrade? Because in a pt for pt firefight, Tau Firewarriors were LOSING to Intercessors. Just like those Intercessors are now BETTER at CC than Ork boyz.
20 Tau Firewarriors in 8th = 140pts, 7 Intercessors = 140pts.
7 intercessors get 14 shots, 9.3 hits and 6.2 wounds for 4.14 dead Tau. That is 29pts of dmg.
20 Firewarriors get 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.6 wounds and 2.3dmg for 1 Dead Marine. That is 22.2pts of dmg.
NOW its 10 Firewarriors = 80pts, 4 Intercessors = 80pts
4 Intercessors get 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 3.5 wounds and 2.37dmg for 18pts of dmg.
10 Firewarriors get 10 shots, 5 hits, 3.33 wounds and 1.11dmg for 11pts of dmg. (Pre AoC it was 16.65pts of dmg)....Whoops, looks like AoC broke that formula again good work GW.
If you want to compare them against Tac Marines instead its almost as bad.
5 Firewarriors WERE 35pts, 2 Tac Marines were 36pts.
2 Tac Marines got 4 shots, 2.66 hits 1.77 wounds and 0.88dmg for 6.2pts of dmg 5 Firewarriors got 5 shots, 2.5 hits, 1.6 wounds and 0.55dmg for 5pts of dmg.
It went to 7 Firewarriors = 56pts, 3 Tacs = 54pts
3 Tacs got 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.66 wounds and 1.33dmg for 10.6pts of dmg.
7 Firewarriors got 7 shots, 3.5 hits, 2.3 wounds and 0.77dmg for 7pts of dmg (Pre AoC it was 10.5)
So ironically, the bolters you are calling bad are still out performing Tau Firewarriors still, though they have shorter range, which is important so I'll gladly still give the edge to the firewarriors.
4 Intercessors get 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 3.5 wounds and 2.37dmg for 18pts of dmg.
10 Firewarriors get 10 shots, 5 hits, 3.33 wounds and 1.11dmg for 11pts of dmg. (Pre AoC it was 16.65pts of dmg)....Whoops, looks like AoC broke that formula again good work GW.
So, in your calculations, Firewarriors never get into Rapid Fire range, but Marines always do. Sure, that seems fair /s. I'd probably put Bolter Discipline bringing up SM Rapid Fire percentage to 75% instead of 50% and Firewarriors RF 50% of the time, but that is just me.
Let's use your numbers for now, and shoot them into themselves.
10 Firewarriors shooting at Firewarriors is 2.22 damage, for 17.75 pts of damage.
4 RF Intercessors shooting at Intercessors is 0.88 damage, for 8.88 pts of damage.
So both Intercessors and Firewarriors are equivalent at killing Firewarriors.
Firewarriors are better at killing Intercessors than Intercessors are.
Seems like Firewarriors are not losing to Intercessors when you compare them shooting at the same targets.
JNAProductions wrote: Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.
Being outside the range of Intercessor Boltguns seems like it might mean the Intercessors do zero damage.
Think about why that might end badly for them.
JNAProductions wrote: Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.
Being outside the range of Intercessor Boltguns seems like it might mean the Intercessors do zero damage.
Think about why that might end badly for them.
You don't get to choose what your opponent does.
Well...since intercessors have 30' range...good luck? At that point you have surrendered most of the board to the Marine player. And as far as rapid fire range...marines start rapid fire range at 30' where as Firewarriors have to get to within 18 to hit that sweet spot. And as JNAP mentioned, when a firewarriors is 18 from the enemy, he is in charge range which means he is in trouble.
I played a game against a newer Tau player recently, and he thought that since he had killed 6 of my Kommandos he could safely move up his Firewarriors and kroot hounds into charge range to attempt to get an objective....lets just say it didn't work out well for him
JNAProductions wrote: Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.
Being outside the range of Intercessor Boltguns seems like it might mean the Intercessors do zero damage.
Think about why that might end badly for them.
You don't get to choose what your opponent does.
Well...since intercessors have 30' range...good luck? At that point you have surrendered most of the board to the Marine player. And as far as rapid fire range...marines start rapid fire range at 30' where as Firewarriors have to get to within 18 to hit that sweet spot. And as JNAP mentioned, when a firewarriors is 18 from the enemy, he is in charge range which means he is in trouble.
I played a game against a newer Tau player recently, and he thought that since he had killed 6 of my Kommandos he could safely move up his Firewarriors and kroot hounds into charge range to attempt to get an objective....lets just say it didn't work out well for him
Rapid Fire at 30'... if they don't move. Did you start on that Objective or did you need to move? That is why I figure Marines with Bolter Discipline get Rapid Fire 75% of the time, whereas everyone else/non-bolt gets it 50% of the time.
What is a better estimate? Give me a percentages that Intercessors and Fire Warriors are getting Rapid Fire. Currently, the numbers above are assuming Marines 100% and Firewarriors 0%, hence the /s.
It's a bit of a false comparison anyway, since Intercessors should be using the Auto Bolt Rifle and only have 24" range and comparing it to the Pulse Carbine at Assault 2 S5 AP0 24"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here, the same calculations with Auto Bolt Rifle and Pulse Carbine
4x Auto Bolt Rifle vs Intercessor: 1.33 damage, 13.3 points
4x Auto Bolt Rifle vs Fire Warrior: 3.55 damage, 28.4 points
10x Pulse Carbine vs Intercessor: 2.22 damage, 22.2 points
10x Pulse Carbine vs Fire Warrior: 4.44 damage, 35.5 points
Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.
Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.
This is a bit naff. as far as gw it is substantiated from the existence of some civilian or smaller caliber bolt weapons in stuff like the Dark Heresy game from FFG. that doesn't mean the guard and inq use different calibers than marines. It's rare for them to say 'marine bolt rounds are always bigger than guard pintle mount ones.' They're also phoning it in if they do. It's an idea for mush brained casual players like "marines are big because they're big because they're big because they're big, and their real rules are the sagitarum guard"
The idea is that for humans there's weapons like GP machine guns and grenade launchers, where you couldn't give them to every rifleman because the kind of speculative firing they do would waste ammunition and they can't carry enough. With marines, they keep that grade of weapon the same size, but upsize the trooper so much that they can use an m60 like it were a sub machine gun. The rounds and power on guard and marine boltguns are equivalent to each other, the thing that changes is the task.
Hecaton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?
I mean yeah, Astartes are supposed to be a bit more skilled than Sororitas, especially given they likely have even more experience than them.
when you're shooting and you have a better "experience" stat (attacks) you should get a buff like +1 shots or 1ap against anything with less experience/fewer attacks. Just anything in the game: exarchs, nobs, HQ characters, ork boyz, guard sergeants, aeldari of all kinds
Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.
Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.
This is a bit naff. as far as gw it is substantiated from the existence of some civilian or smaller caliber bolt weapons in stuff like the Dark Heresy game from FFG. that doesn't mean the guard and inq use different calibers than marines. It's rare for them to say 'marine bolt rounds are always bigger than guard pintle mount ones.' They're also phoning it in if they do. It's an idea for mush brained casual players like "marines are big because they're big because they're big because they're big, and their real rules are the sagitarum guard"
The idea is that for humans there's weapons like GP machine guns and grenade launchers, where you couldn't give them to every rifleman because the kind of speculative firing they do would waste ammunition and they can't carry enough. With marines, they keep that grade of weapon the same size, but upsize the trooper so much that they can use an m60 like it were a sub machine gun. The rounds and power on guard and marine boltguns are equivalent to each other, the thing that changes is the task.
In fairness I believe it was Black Library that originated the idea that there's a difference between an Astartes bolter and a normal human one, and that an Astartes bolter will break your arm if you try to shoot it or something to that effect.
Otherwise I agree with you that it's pretty significant when every Marine is carrying what would be a special weapon for a human, and able to use it on full-cyclic with full accuracy rather than being limited to semi-auto to handle recoil. It's always seemed very crude to me to think that Marines need to have bigger bolters (or bigger tanks, or bigger leaders, etc) to be special.
From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Just be willing to bite the bullet when their cost increases dramatically.
How much of a Tactical Marine's point budget is the Boltgun? 1 pt? Maybe less?
Compare a Sternguard to a Tactical Marine. 20 points vs 18 points each with the same stat line, except +1 Attack/Leadership for Sternguard, let's call it +1 budget point for the upgraded statline.
Special Issue Boltgun vs Boltgun, SIB has +6" range, and AP-2 over the regular Boltgun. An additional AP-2 against Marines is worth 50%-100% additional damage (AoC drops it to 50% since Boltgun is AP0 and can't get worse). Sure, Tactical has Obj Sec and Melta Bomb and Sternguard can take more combi/special/heavy weapons, but that should swing the budget further toward Tactical being more efficient since the weapon options have point costs to balance them already. So +1 budget point for the Special Issue Boltgun.
So, potentially adding 50% or doubling a Tactical Marine's Boltgun damage only worth +1 point (and frankly, I'd still rather have the +1 Attack/Leadership). 19 point Tactical Marines are still cheaper than Intercessors and tied for Assault Intercessors as the cheapest Troop (barring chapter specifics). You could easily give Tactical Marines RF3 24" S4 AP0 D1 Boltguns and budget them at 20 points a model... and still don't think they would be better than Auto Intercessors. About the same shooting (strat to double shoot, vs half range/not moving) but Intercessors have +1A each which is worth something. Frankly, a 5-man RF3 Tacticals at 20 points/each is still inferior shooting to a 3-man Bike Squad with 2x Flamer and a Combi-Flamer for 110 points unless they are in half range or standing still.
But GW likely doesn't adhere well to point budgets, because the Storm Bolter (ie a double Boltgun) that we just showed is worth maybe 2 budget points total (so +1 point if upgrading from Boltgun) costs +5 points (so budgeted at 6 points). Sternguard can take Storm Bolters at a cheaper +3 points (4 budget points), but it isn't even worth a full +1 point upgrade for them, it is more of a sidegrade really since they give up their SIB for it.
Karol wrote: Really? Okey then GK only have storm bolters, the heavy weapons that GW gave them are so bad, it is a downgrade you pay points for , if you take them. Where aren't the blessed ammo SBGK have the same kind of a blessed ammo SBSoB have?
Plus Tau squad weapons are much better then the bolter, and on top of that they exist in an army that has crissis suits, broad sides etc And shoting , specially out of LoS shoting beats out melee every time, so we can't even say that power armoured armies are balanced vs tau by virtue of having better melee. Because there is no melee, if a tau kills or cripples your units before you reach it.
How about Ad mecha guns?
Out of LOS shooting is better then melee?
HAVE YOU READ THE F** **G BALANCE DATASLATE???
Insectum7 wrote: ^The Grav-Cannon is definitely undercosted, especially when compared to the Heavy Bolter. Even with its buff, the Heavy Bolter hasn't made it into any of my lists if there's another option.
Yeah, the Grav Cannon has been a better AT weapon than the Lascannon since the start if 8th, lol. Lascannon needs a buff, big time.
I mean, for Imperial heavy weapons it should be like this:
10 points:
- Autocannon
- Heavy bolter
- Heavy flamer
- Mortar
- Multi-laser: Increased to Heavy 6.
- Twin heavy stubber: Increased to Heavy 8.
I just want to point out that we're calling bolters on chaos marines ok "because they're cheap", irrelevant on sisters units because they don't matter and are just ablative wounds and then using intercessors as the point of comparison for loyalist Marines because they have an outright better gun. So we're back to: is the bolter not good enough?
Tbh if you make a different named bolter variant for each faction, bundle the rules onto their own unique gun, I'd be a lot happier. With the inconsistencies.
We just need to expand the scope of the stats ranges, refine the breakpoints and yes, a 30-odd point marine facing off against multiple cultists or whatever is fine by me, shrink army sizes back down a little across the board, everyone wins.
Everybody wins? Not if the same players, who can't accept leaving a massive chunk of their collection at home, start demanding 2500 points as the new standard. So in practise you'd get the opposite effect, most armies will be even more massive across the board. Everyone loses.
SM armies are already reasonable in terms of numbers, they're not bigger than 1500 points ones of 3rd, 4th and 5th edition. Definitely smaller than 1850 points ones of 7th.
Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?
Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.
1 point to triple your ranged firepower…
I’m not even gonna bother running the math. That’s bonkers.
If you're not gonna run the math, why bother posting? I didn't even read his post but come on dude.
18 point Tactical Marine with RF1 Bolter.
19 point Tactical Marine with RF3 Bolter.
I mean, at that point it's an AutoBolt Intercessor who loses one attack and the ability to Advance and Shoot at -1, but gains double the shots if they stand still or get within 12".
If you RAELLY want me to run the numbers, sure. Give me a target.
EviscerationPlague wrote: If you're not gonna run the math, why bother posting? I didn't even read his post but come on dude.
Okay, triple the firepower at 20pts instead of 18pts, so that's 3.0 * (18/20) = 2.7, or a 170% increase in offensive firepower point-for-point, with a (20/18) = 1.1x reduction in durability, or 90% as durable as before.
So... what deeper meaning have we extracted from this exercise? Throwing six shots at 12" when moving or 24" when stationary would render Auto Bolt Intercessors completely redundant.
Out of curiosity I went back to 3rd/4th edition and did some math for Tau Firewarriors vs. Tacticals:
4 Tacticals for 60 points
6 Fire Warriors for 60 points
Fire Warriors shooting: 6×0.5×0.666×0.333×15= 9.98 point return
Tactical Marines firing: 4×0.666×0.666×0.5×10=8.8 point return.
Tau edge out the win, while also having greater range and therefore better Rapid Fire range as well.
Edit: Also, gosh those numbers are easy to calculate and look at. No doctrines, stratagems, mitigating circumstances, reroll buffs, etc. How refreshing!
Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?
Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.
1 point to triple your ranged firepower…
I’m not even gonna bother running the math. That’s bonkers.
First, its +2 points to triple ranged damage only. Tacticals are 18 points a model. Looks like I was ninjaed a couple times since I took a bit to write this post.
But is it even good? Probably, but let's run the numbers.
Spoiler:
No one gave me a better estimate than 75% RF with Bolter Discipline and 50% without, so I am using those numbers.
I am also going to ignore Stratagems, even though it looks like Fire Warriors have one to automatically get Rapid Fire and an additional AP-1 for 1 CP, another for effectively Hammer of the Emperor (hits of 6 auto-wound) also for 1 CP, and a third for 1 CP to treat their rifles as pistols. If you are at greater than normal RF range, Relentless Fusillade is half the cost of Intercessors Rapid Fire strat, and also allows you to effectively shoot twice, but better since it also gives -1 AP.
I am also going to normalize for 100 points worth of each of the models. ie Pulse Rifle Fire Warriors are 80 points for 10, so 12.5 at 100 points, My Mythical RF 3 Boltgun Tactical Marines are 100 points for 5, and Regular Boltgun Tactical Marines are 90 points for 5. And because I mentioned it earlier, the 3-man Bike Squad with 3 twin boltguns, 2 Flamers and a Combi-Flamer for 110 points.
Targets are 100 points of Intercessors (10W T4 3+ w/AoC), Fire Warriors (12.5W T3 4+), and the Bike Squad (8.18W T5 3+/AoC).
Pulse Carbine into Fire Warriors: 10 shots adjusted to 100 points (100/80) = 12.5 shots at 50% Rapid Fire = 18.75 shots, 4+ BS = 9.375 hits, wound on 3+ = 6.25 wounds, save on 5+ = 4.16 damage, 8 points a wound = 33.33 points of damage (note: S5 is wasted here into T3)
Pulse Carbine into Intercessors: 12.5 shots at 50% Rapid Fire = 18.75 shots, 4+ BS = 9.375 hits, wound on 3+ = 6.25 wounds, save on 3+ = 2.08 damage, 10 points a wound = 20.8 points of damage Pulse Carbine into Bike Squad: same as Intercessor until ... wound on 4+ = 4.687 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.56 damage, 12.2 points a wound = 19.07 points of damage
Regular Boltgun into Fire Warriors: 5 shots adjusted to 100 points (100/90) = 5.55 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 9.72 shots, 3+ BS = 6.418 hits, wound on 3+ = 4.32 wounds, save on 4+ = 2.16 damage, 8 points a wound = 17.28 points of damage Regular Boltgun into Intercessors: 5 shots adjusted to 100 points (100/90) = 5.55 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 9.72 shots, 3+ BS = 6.418 hits, wound on 4+ = 3.21 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.07 damage, 10 points a wound = 10.7 points of damage Regular Boltgun into Bike Squad: same as Intercessor until ... wound on 5+ = 2.14 wounds, save on 3+ = 0.713 damage, 12.22 points a wound = 8.7 points of damage
Mythical Boltgun into Fire Warriors: 15 shots adjusted into 100 points (100/100) = 15 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 26.25 shots, 3+ BS = 17.5 hits, wound on 3+ = 11.66 wounds, save on 4+ = 5.83 damage, 8 points a wound = 46.66 points of damage
Mythical Boltgun into Intercessors: 15 shots adjusted into 100 points (100/100) = 15 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 26.25 shots, 3+ BS = 17.5 hits, wound on 4+ = 8.75 wounds, save on 3+ = 2.91 damage, 10 points a wound = 29.1 points of damage
Mythical Boltgun into Bike Squad: same as Intercessor until ... wound on 5+ = 5.83 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.94 damage, 12.2 points a wound = 23.76 points of damage
(Rapid Fire baked into initial numbers, since they always get Bolter Disciple)
Bike Squad into Fire Warriors: 14 Boltgun shots (2@4+ BS) and 10.5 average Flamer autohits adjusted into 100 points (100/110) = 12.72 shots (1.8@BS4+)/9.54 Flamer, 3&4+ BS and Auto hits = 7.27 + 0.91 + 9.54 =17.72 hits, wound on 3+ = 11.81 wounds, save on 4+ = 5.9 damage, 8 points a wound = 47.25 points of damage
Bike Squad into Intercessors: 14 Boltgun shots (2@4+ BS) and 10.5 average Flamer autohits adjusted into 100 points (100/110) = 12.72 shots (1.8@BS4+)/9.54 Flamer, 3&4+ BS and Auto hits = 7.27 + 0.91 + 9.54 =17.72 hits, wound on 4+ =8.86 wounds, save on 3+ = 2.95 damage, 10 points a wound = 29.5 points of damage
Bike Squad into Bike Squad = same as Intercessor until ... wound on 5+ = 5.9 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.9 damage, 12.2 points a wound = 24.06 points of damage
Balance-wise, 20 pt Mythical Tacticals only need a Storm Bolter (ie, double boltgun) to be about the same shooting as Fire Warriors per point. Essentially, Normal Tacticals are half the shooting per point as Fire Warriors but are only 50-70% more durable per point even after AoC (if they were balanced, they should have 100% more durability). But even with triple boltguns, they are worse than a Bike Squad for shooting... and no one bothers to take a Bike Squad for shooting. Bike Squad has a slight edge in durability per point and that is after spending an additional 20 points on guns and are much faster.
TLDR: So yes, double boltguns for +2 points is about the same efficiency as Fire Warrior shooting, so triple boltguns for +2 points are better than Fire Warriors' shooting. But even then, that barely gets them to the shooting efficiency of a Fast Attack choice that people aren't taking anyway. SM Troops aren't for damage, even if you double/triple their damage.
Now look at the Grey Knight's Strike Squad (also a Troop) for another 2 points/model over my Mythical Tacticals (so +4 points over normal Tacticals). They get a Storm Bolter (instead of a triple boltgun), but also a Master-Crafted Power Sword (worth at least 8 points itself, compare to Bladeguard), an additional attack (plus baked in "shock assault" for another additional attack). So, roughly the same shooting as Fire Warriors, but about 7.5-10x the melee capacity as a Tactical Squad (granted, they aren't known for melee). If you compare the melee of Strike Squad to Assault Intercessors (with Shock Assault), they are +3 points for 4x the melee damage (both attacking Intercessors). Plus the shooting efficiency of Fire Warriors. So double the shooting and quadruple the melee(or more) for +3-4 points compared to triple shooting for +2. Which is more balanced? Where is the comparison between Strike Squad and Strike Team(Fire Warriors)?
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
They can if its pointed appropriately. Although yes the firewarriors should have the edge I agree, even if through weight of numbers.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
That's my point.
They are 50% more durable (against D1 shots anyway), but half the shooting. Neither one wants to be in melee, but regular Boltgun shooting is so bad that their melee is almost the same. So sure, if you want your shooty troops to spend half of their damage budget on melee... that just makes their role confused?
If you were given the option double your ranged shooting at the cost of not being able to melee at all, would you take it on a unit whose primary role is shooting? That's how budgets work.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
That's my point.
They are 50% more durable, but half the shooting. Neither one wants to be in melee, but regular Boltgun shooting is so bad that their melee is almost the same. So sure, if you want your shooty troops to spend half of their damage budget on melee... that just makes their role confused?
If you were given the option double your ranged shooting at the cost of not being able to melee at all, would you take it on a unit whose primary role is shooting? That's how budgets work.
50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Any player after 1993 doesn't care about lore. All they know is bolter porn, screw orks, buff marines, eat hot pretzels, and stratagems.
That's a hard sell. Someone born in 1993 could have played 40k for a good decade, quit in 7th and never encountered stratagems.
I think 1993 is a bit early, but maybe that was when marines became T4? 2nd edition did well with their balance, imo. Marines cost 30 but a whole bunch of other "staple" units could compete very favorably with them. Aspect Warriors, minor Daemons such as Bloodletters and Plaguebearers hovered around similar costs. Necron Warriors were 50ish ppm and very nasty.
I'd say up through 4th was pretty solid, game wise. Marines still ran sorta middle-of-the-pack.
I think Black Library was already pumping out bolter porn by then though. The original Ian Watson Space Marine remains my favorite 40k novel.
JNAProductions wrote: 50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Now do Grav-gun.
No cover, 12.5 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines, 16.6 with cover.
No cover, 18.75 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors, 22.5 with cover.
Tactical Marines are 50-35% less durable than Fire Warriors against Grav. Shouldn't that be taken into account when evaluating relative durability?
I think I took my 50-70% durability/point number from the first math post and short-circuited it to 50% in my brain by the second post anyway. So my bad there.
So 37.5 hits to kill 100 points of Fire warriors, so that would be 56.25 Boltgun shots, or 32.14 Tactical Marines using my 75% Bolter Disciple. Or 578 points of Tactical Squad to kill 100 points of Strike Team.
It'll take 50 Pulse Rifle hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marine, so 100 shots, or 66.6 Fire Warriors using my 50% Rapid Fire. Or 533 points of Fire Warriors to kill 100 points of Tactical Squad.
It still looks like Strike Team net out more efficient than Tactical Squad by 8.5% taking both durability and offense into account by shooting each other.
JNAProductions wrote: 50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Now do Grav-gun.
No cover, 12.5 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines, 16.6 with cover.
No cover, 18.75 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors, 22.5 with cover.
Tactical Marines are 50-35% less durable than Fire Warriors against Grav. Shouldn't that be taken into account when evaluating relative durability?
Yes it should, buuut small arms (and 1Damage CC attacks) abound in 40k, being the most common weapons/attacks brought by nearly all infantry in the game. Imo this makes weapons such as Grav not "weigh" as much in the evaluation.
TheBestBucketHead wrote:It was a copypasta I changed for 40k, don't think too hard about it. Just thought it would be funny.
If it makes you feel any better, I recognized it.
Kaied wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: 50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Now do Grav-gun.
No cover, 12.5 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines, 16.6 with cover.
No cover, 18.75 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors, 22.5 with cover.
Tactical Marines are 50-35% less durable than Fire Warriors against Grav. Shouldn't that be taken into account when evaluating relative durability?
If your basic infantry are ~100% more durable against ubiquitous S4 fire but their basic infantry are ~50% more durable against a highly specialized anti-heavy-infantry special weapon, you're coming out ahead by a wide margin.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:It certainly is a very tabletop-centric perspective.
Which is fine, to each their own, but you are ignoring something that many people believe should be a significant input into games set in the 40k universe.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The next thing to remember is this isn't an TTRPG and, contrary to some people's opinion, space marines aren't the Player Character faction with most, if not all, other factions being NPCs. The game should be fair to all factions. So space marines simply can't be good at everything.
Not sure I suggested they should be?... And I feel like you're jumping to unfair conclusions here.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes btw.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:As much as I don't want it to matter, the fact that space marines are so popular really does mean some concessions have to be made for gameplay.
Framing current Marine stats as a 'concession for the sake of gameplay' is one thing. That's a different argument to 'Marine stats are lore- accurate as they are', or 'Marine players just want their units to be OP', which I believe many others are implying.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Because if we try to get marine bolters as killy as you think. Then all the Necron weapons probably need to be updated, then the Tau and Eldar. And so on and so on. And we are right back where we started, but with bigger numbers and more rules bloat.
A killy as I think? You mean the stats I posted? Why would they invalidate/outdate Tau and Eldar weapons?
(Gauss weapons need some love too though, I'm down for that.)
Voss wrote:Right... which is why space marines have largely gone up in points in 8th and 9th (with a few backsteps and half-steps).
Intercessors (the new plastic they're trying to flog) are among the most points-efficient troops in the game.
Voss wrote:Is anyone in fact assuming that? Or are they just decreeing they need to be better because reasons?
Plenty of people have been discussing associated points costs/increases in this thread (and others). And "reasons" is one elegant way to ignore several dozen pages of discussion.
Voss wrote:No, it wouldn't be more justifiable. It would be a part of 'getting things wrong.'
If you think they keep doing wrong, having faith that they'd do this right is... weird.
No harm in discussing potential improvements. If they got everything wrong then none of us would be here having this lovely, passionate discussion.
Bobthehero wrote:As for Marine lore itself, it's wildly inconsistent, I have read books where five Marines (a named Reclusiarch and his retinue) get overwhelmed by 30 or so Orks, and need militiamen (and a Stormtrooper) to rescue them. Or another where a squad of ten Kasrkins defeat two Traitor Marines at the cost of 3 men.
In not sure anyone is saying that things like that shouldn't be possible though? I certainly don't think 5 boltguns should be able to chew through 30 Orks per turn.
And yeah... Kasrkin are badarse. I don't think Marines should be able to ignore 10 Stormtroopers either if that's what you're implying.
Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.
They are bigger and a better design than Sororitas and especially IG bolt weapons, so yeah.
Having "Astartes/Legion boltgun" being a bit better than an IG boltgun would be fine.
Careful with this kind of talk... it'll get you in trouble.
Seconding the Astartes/Militarum split.
SemperMortis wrote:You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.
You have to realise that one could say the same about your argument?
The bearer matters, sure. But that's not the weapon... that's the bearer. One weapon can have multiple bearers. A boltgun can be welded at BS2+ or BS4+. It can get Tactical Doctrine... or it can't. It can be rapid fired at 24"... or it can't. The wielding model determines that. Not the weapon profile.
Orks have terrible BS, sure, but their "weapon" (i.e. the statline of the wargear they carry, independent of bearer) definitely isn't terrible. Shootas shouldn't be the best small arm in the galaxy (R18", Assault 4, S4 I think you suggested previously?...) just because Orks can't hit jack with them. Complain about Ork BS if their output upsets you, or their points costs, sure... but it isn't the weapon that's bad.
SemperMortis wrote:
Guard sergeant - bs 4+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
That is an upgrade for the Sgt, hes nominally equipped with a laspistol and chainsword. So you used to be paying a point for this. Which, surprising basically nobody, until it became free, nobody did this since it was just a waste of a point.
Definitely not useless. AM sergeants can't equip a lasgun for some reason, so a 1pt boltgun is the only way to give your sergeant a 24" rapid fire weapon that can contribute at ranges over 12" (+1S relative to a lasgun, but can't FRFSRF).
SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface wrote: Sister of battle - bs 3+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Which is why sisters use their required troop slots to equip special weapons and use them as ablative wounds.
But that's not a case for maintaining the status quo. If anything, it supports the notion that the status quo should change.
pelicaniforce wrote:It's rare for them to say 'marine bolt rounds are always bigger than guard pintle mount ones.' They're also phoning it in if they do. It's an idea for mush brained casual players like "marines are big because they're big because they're big because they're big, and their real rules are the sagitarum guard"
...
The rounds and power on guard and marine boltguns are equivalent to each other, the thing that changes is the task.
You know, being condescending doesn't make you right. Plenty of quotes posted earlier in the thread support a discrepancy between regular and Astartes-sized bolters (if not bolt rounds specifically). Both Lexicanum and the 40k Wiki concur on that, particularly when it comes to the size and recoil of Astartes-sized boltguns, and draw from official sources.
(And yup, mush-brain here who thinks Sag Guard statlines are more lore-accurate representations in a lot of ways. Hurr durr. )
catbarf wrote:From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes too. Not trying to play gotcha... just genuinely curious to know how you feel about their playstyle.
I'll keep my replies simple and brief. If missed something, it's because I missed something. Not because I am trying to evade anything.
I currently think that space marines are in a pretty good spot as a compromise to their fluff and gameplay. Ultimately, I think lore is in service of gameplay, and I would rather have a good game than a lore accurate one. And this is coming from someone who has consumed a lot of lore (sans Black Library books) and tends to name all of their marines and come up with full histories of my armies/warbands.
I don't have much to say on Custodes. I think they should be better than space marines, simple as. However, in game design, there's a practical upper limit to how an elite an 'army' can become where their rules can become binary good/bad, lack interesting decisions, lose more by just bad luck and/or are such extreme skew as to nearly always create a negative play experience. Even though, I am well on my way to creating a Chaos Knights army, I don't think the inclusion of knights as an independent faction was a good thing for the game. I believe that 28mm and up scale games should focus on infantry and having a faction that has no infantry isn't the best for the health of said game.
Aware of it or not, most players do want, in my experience, their favorite faction to be a little OP. Not by a lot, just enough to give them an edge. However, I am talking about the fact that space marines armies are/can-be so common that if space marines are even just perceived to have a power edge, whole gaming groups can become more than 3/4s marine players. Conversely, space marines tend to be the default template opponent player when someone builds their list (outside a clearly known bigger meta threat). What this means is both space marines have to be more carefully balanced than most factions since so many players have them. While at the same time, space marines are likely to always be on the lower side of win % as players naturally list tailor at least a little to counter them.
What I want for space marines is for them to be a good beginner player army while still allowing for more seasoned players to have some mileage in mastering out to field them. I think now is just about as good of a place as marines have ever been to accomplish this. A beginning player can rely on marine durability to carry them through a couple mistakes. While a seasoned player has to read the game state to effectively make use of all the weapons (meaning both shooting and melee, even basic melee of S: U, AP 0/-1 D: 1) at space marines disposal. Which, done right, should make a seasoned marine player feel like there is a trade-off of Bolter Discipline/Malicious Volleys for damage now (or to hold ground) compared to delayed close combat damage later at least equal or more than RF at 24" range.
I only say as killy as you think in regards that you think bolters should be more than they are now. I assume that you don't want bolters to stay the same or become weaker. I am very happy where bolters are now. Even an infinitesimal buff would me them more killy, no? That's all I mean.
As for other weapons, I believe that Tau pulse weapons are better than marine bolters or bolters in general, if there is any difference at all. The same goes with Necron Gauss weapons and so on and so on. The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should. Soon or later, the game is back to being far too lethal, just with bigger numbers except perhaps units with lasguns/autoguns being even more pathetic.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: @I_am_a_Spoon
As for other weapons, I believe that Tau pulse weapons are better than marine bolters or bolters in general, if there is any difference at all. The same goes with Necron Gauss weapons and so on and so on. The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should. Soon or later, the game is back to being far too lethal, just with bigger numbers except perhaps units with lasguns/autoguns being even more pathetic.
This is already where it's at:
Bolter: rapid fire 24" s4 ap- d1
Pulse rifle: rapid fire 36" s5 ap-1 d1
I'm under no illusions if the bolter profile hadn't been set week 1 of the edition it'd be more like the bolt rifle at this point. Likewise gauss blasters (immortals gun?) Would likely be d2 and the immortal 2w if they were released now.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Ultimately, I think lore is in service of gameplay, and I would rather have a good game than a lore accurate one.
I get what you're saying, and agree. I just don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive, which seems to be the implication of many posts in this thread.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I don't have much to say on Custodes. I think they should be better than space marines, simple as.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Marines should be better individually than Custodes though... which makes it a bit confusing when people decry Marine buffs on gameplay grounds while ignoring the existence of Custodes.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:However, in game design, there's a practical upper limit to how an elite an 'army' can become where their rules can become binary good/bad, lack interesting decisions, lose more by just bad luck and/or are such extreme skew as to nearly always create a negative play experience.
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? How are these things apparent in the case of your Chaos Knights for example, or Custodes?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Aware of it or not, most players do want, in my experience, their favorite faction to be a little OP. Not by a lot, just enough to give them an edge.
Maybe, maybe not. I definitely think it's unfair to dismiss proponents of a stronger bolter as biased/exploitative, or feeling that way because 'they have protagonist syndrome and perceive all other factions as NPCs'.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:What I want for space marines is for them to be a good beginner player army while still allowing for more seasoned players to have some mileage in mastering out to field them. I think now is just about as good of a place as marines have ever been to accomplish this. A beginning player can rely on marine durability to carry them through a couple mistakes. While a seasoned player has to read the game state to effectively make use of all the weapons (meaning both shooting and melee, even basic melee of S: U, AP 0/-1 D: 1) at space marines disposal. Which, done right, should make a seasoned marine player feel like there is a trade-off of Bolter Discipline/Malicious Volleys for damage now (or to hold ground) compared to delayed close combat damage later at least equal or more than RF at 24" range.
I personally wish GW would start spruiking other factions as beginner ones; like you said, there are far too many Marine players already. But I get why their traits make them attractive in that role. (Plus them being GW's posterboys.)
As for the latter stuff, are you saying that any bolter buffs would make Marines too weighted towards shooting overall, and that would be a bad thing?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I only say as killy as you think in regards that you think bolters should be more than they are now.
Yeah, but 'killy' enough to necessitate buffs to Eldar/Tau/Necron weapons? Why would that be the case?
Besides, half the point is to improve bolters relative to other factions' small arms (not necessarily to make them better in an absolute sense though, especially not better than gauss or pulse weapons).
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
A Pulse Rifle is superior to a Bolter, lore and tabletop.
If Bolters go to D2, for instance, Pulse Rifles would need to be at least D2 as well.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
A Pulse Rifle is superior to a Bolter, lore and tabletop.
If Bolters go to D2, for instance, Pulse Rifles would need to be at least D2 as well.
Lore wise they're controlled plasma bursts, plasma is represented by higher strength and AP, so a 36" s5 ap-2 d1 gun is plenty good enough.
Even then s5 ap-1 d1 at 36" is hardly worse than 24" s4 ap- d2, merely different.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
A Pulse Rifle is superior to a Bolter, lore and tabletop.
If Bolters go to D2, for instance, Pulse Rifles would need to be at least D2 as well.
Pulse rifles have a more powerful initial impact, sure, but they don't explode after penetrating to generate an internal shockwave that pulverises (or even dismembers) the target from within. IMO D2 is worth considering as one way to empower bolters without taking away from the S5 advantage pulse weapons have.
Although as I've said elsewhere, it could be nice to revisit pulse weapons too (funny that people were getting annoyed at me in that thread for suggesting pulse weapons become more powerful ).
This is already where it's at:
Bolter: rapid fire 24" s4 ap- d1
Pulse rifle: rapid fire 36" s5 ap-1 d1
I'm under no illusions if the bolter profile hadn't been set week 1 of the edition it'd be more like the bolt rifle at this point. Likewise gauss blasters (immortals gun?) Would likely be d2 and the immortal 2w if they were released now.
I was just using Tau and Necrons as an example of factions with more powerful small arms than the bolter. It also applies to Eldar and arguably to Orks. Additionally, there is an upper limit of what a standard issue small arm should do. I think 9th has hit that limit already, if not exceeded it. Especially when adding the less tangible synergies (like strats, aura buffs and subfaction traits) the game has.
I'm still in progress with building a Necron army, so I am only partly familiar with them.
I'm not sure about that with Necron Immortals' Gauss Blasters. They are already: 30" S: 5 AP -2. Mephrit Dynasty, they can increase that to 33" and AP -3 within 17.5". With 6s adding addition hits or auto-wounding for 1CP. And another -1 AP and ignore Cover at half range in conjunction with Vengeful Stars protocol. So as unlikely as it is, a Gauss Blaster could be 2 shots, auto wounds on 6s, S: 5 AP -4 (ignore Cover) D: 1 at 17.5" for 17 points in the Troop slot.
Adding D2 with that sounds pretty close to an all-purpose MEQ to anti-tank weapon to me. Which is something to avoid, especially with a Troops option and one of their basic weapon choices.
Immortals going to 2 Wounds is part way between a buff and a side grade (but more of a minor buff), but all clunky given how Reanimation Protocols work. I'd much rather them have something a little simpler like a 5+ Invulnerable (even if it is handed out like candy these days). That way it doesn't complicate Reanimation, nor wound tracking in conjunction with Reanimation (that wound marker is has a chance of getting buried/mislabeled in a squad at bots get back up).
I'm all for Necrons getting a tad more expensive that 17ppm to create some more separation between them and Warriors. I feel like more offensive power isn't the way to go about it outside a bespoke rules effect, as both of their weapons seem decent to me. I'd much rather they get abilities that help them live up to their namesake. Be it an Invul, default fall back and shoot, or whatever. Though I am a little iffy about a 2nd wound since as mentioned above, and the fact the more 2W Troops there are, the more everyone is going to be armed to deal with 2W models.
However, this is a thread on Bolters, and not just marine bolters. I happen to only speak about marine bolters, as they are the ones I am most familiar with. I would be happy to participate in a Necron thread, though; my input would probably be limited as I don't have much practical experience with them yet.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I was just using Tau and Necrons as an example of factions with more powerful small arms than the bolter. It also applies to Eldar and arguably to Orks.
I was onboard until the second sentence.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Additionally, there is an upper limit of what a standard issue small arm should do. I think 9th has hit that limit already, if not exceeded it. Especially when adding the less tangible synergies (like strats, aura buffs and subfaction traits) the game has.
Just curious, but why? What limit? If anything, with the new wound table removing the cap of 10 on unit/weapon values, surely there's less of an upper limit than ever?
Agree that all the meta rules and abilities are an unnecessary complication.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I was just using Tau and Necrons as an example of factions with more powerful small arms than the bolter. It also applies to Eldar and arguably to Orks.
I was onboard until the second sentence.
The Shuriken Catapult has seen a tremendous degradation over the years. It started its life as a better Storm Bolter. There are some nuances to the relationship through that time relating to unit capability, but where we've ended up after 20 years is a definitely less-than-ideally-capable Catapult.
The Shoota is a funny weapon. Orks used to be armed with Bolters before 3rd ed. The idea of a Shoota being a very aggressively and wildly fired bolter sorta gets us what we have.
catbarf wrote:From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes too. Not trying to play gotcha... just genuinely curious to know how you feel about their playstyle.
Part of the problem is that 40K's design space is fairly limited, so Custodes are pretty much more Marine-y Marines. Army-wide heroic intervention is good, but I like the idea that they're constantly wargaming and have a contingency for every threat, and they could lean into that further than the current ka'tah system. Something more along the lines of picking a stance for each unit per turn, for example. They also strike me more as 'stoic guardians' than the lightning-strike ethos of Marines, so shouldn't be reliant on abilities like Shock Assault for peak effectiveness. Layer those on top of models that are individually superior to Marines, but otherwise have a similar balance of offense/defense/mobility for the points, and you'd get an army that plays pretty differently and has the capability to punch above its weight if used well.
As with Marines, the problem with a jack-of-all-trades approach is that at a macro level they need to out-shoot the melee specialists and out-melee the ranged specialists. This is where I think expectations derived from fluff are an issue; nothing you read in Marine/Custodes fiction primes you to think 'I shouldn't get into melee with Slugga Boyz because point-for-point they'll tear me apart'. There's a disconnect between the power-fantasy themes of the novels and the needs of a balanced tabletop wargame.
Only the bad novels. The good ones have the Marines play to their relative strengths.
E.g in Devastation of Baal, the BA and friends are forced to fight a very defensive style of warfare because getting out into their usual melee frenzy will get them all killed because Marines do not out-melee a Tyranid swarm.
Same in Helsreach, tbh, Grimaldus and friends are said to be overwhelmed by a mob of 30 Boys in melee. We're talking 5-6 Marines there, with a Reclusiarch and his command squad.
People, in general, go for the fluffy interpretation they prefer (I do that, too).
When someone wants changes to the game according to the lore, they really should be saying according to MY prefered lore, because it's so dang inconsistent. Personally, I prefer the Marines to be a lot more toned down than most, for reasons explained in my previous post in this thread.
catbarf wrote:From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes too. Not trying to play gotcha... just genuinely curious to know how you feel about their playstyle.
Part of the problem is that 40K's design space is fairly limited, so Custodes are pretty much more Marine-y Marines. Army-wide heroic intervention is good, but I like the idea that they're constantly wargaming and have a contingency for every threat, and they could lean into that further than the current ka'tah system. Something more along the lines of picking a stance for each unit per turn, for example. They also strike me more as 'stoic guardians' than the lightning-strike ethos of Marines, so shouldn't be reliant on abilities like Shock Assault for peak effectiveness. Layer those on top of models that are individually superior to Marines, but otherwise have a similar balance of offense/defense/mobility for the points, and you'd get an army that plays pretty differently and has the capability to punch above its weight if used well.
As with Marines, the problem with a jack-of-all-trades approach is that at a macro level they need to out-shoot the melee specialists and out-melee the ranged specialists. This is where I think expectations derived from fluff are an issue; nothing you read in Marine/Custodes fiction primes you to think 'I shouldn't get into melee with Slugga Boyz because point-for-point they'll tear me apart'. There's a disconnect between the power-fantasy themes of the novels and the needs of a balanced tabletop wargame.
point for point marines kick the teeth in of ork boyz in melee. when orks were 7 points per model you were right, at 9 points.. not really
10 boyz w/nob who has a big choppa 95 points
10 T5 bodies, nob has 2 wounds 11 wounds total
9x3 ork boyz attack hitting on 3/s 27 attacks, 17.8 hits, wounding on 4's 8.9 wounds. power armor ignores the choppa AP, saves on 3's, 2.8 wounds.
big choppa swings, 3 attacks, 2 hits, wounds on 3's so 1 wound, ap ignored because reasons, .5 wounds, if it goes through kills that second marine wasting the damage2.
so assuming they get the charge the dedicated melee unit takes out 1-2 intercessors meaning 20-40 points. if the intercessors get the charge bring that to 1 casualty.
catbarf wrote:From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes too. Not trying to play gotcha... just genuinely curious to know how you feel about their playstyle.
Part of the problem is that 40K's design space is fairly limited, so Custodes are pretty much more Marine-y Marines. Army-wide heroic intervention is good, but I like the idea that they're constantly wargaming and have a contingency for every threat, and they could lean into that further than the current ka'tah system. Something more along the lines of picking a stance for each unit per turn, for example. They also strike me more as 'stoic guardians' than the lightning-strike ethos of Marines, so shouldn't be reliant on abilities like Shock Assault for peak effectiveness. Layer those on top of models that are individually superior to Marines, but otherwise have a similar balance of offense/defense/mobility for the points, and you'd get an army that plays pretty differently and has the capability to punch above its weight if used well.
As with Marines, the problem with a jack-of-all-trades approach is that at a macro level they need to out-shoot the melee specialists and out-melee the ranged specialists. This is where I think expectations derived from fluff are an issue; nothing you read in Marine/Custodes fiction primes you to think 'I shouldn't get into melee with Slugga Boyz because point-for-point they'll tear me apart'. There's a disconnect between the power-fantasy themes of the novels and the needs of a balanced tabletop wargame.
point for point marines kick the teeth in of ork boyz in melee. when orks were 7 points per model you were right, at 9 points.. not really
10 boyz w/nob who has a big choppa 95 points
10 T5 bodies, nob has 2 wounds 11 wounds total
9x3 ork boyz attack hitting on 3/s 27 attacks, 17.8 hits, wounding on 4's 8.9 wounds. power armor ignores the choppa AP, saves on 3's, 2.8 wounds.
big choppa swings, 3 attacks, 2 hits, wounds on 3's so 1 wound, ap ignored because reasons, .5 wounds, if it goes through kills that second marine wasting the damage2.
so assuming they get the charge the dedicated melee unit takes out 1-2 intercessors meaning 20-40 points. if the intercessors get the charge bring that to 1 casualty.
5 intercessors - 100 points. 16 attacks soesnt matter who charges, 10 hits, 3 wounds, a slim chance one is saved but let's assume not. 27 points. Which I admit that's not a melee unit, intercessors are flat better, but their melee output is comparable. At 7 points they kill 23 points of orks, the orks kill 60 points of marines which seems OK.
The downside is dropping them to 7 points doesn't fix the root issue of boyz units.
the orks are not killing 60 points of marines though, 3-4 wounds if they get the charge. so dedicated melee unit nets 1/3 more wounds and the intercessors have worthwhile guns to plink the orks down on the way there.. I do think ork boyz need more than a points drop, but I am unsure GW cares enough about orks to give them the armor of contempt treatment (not the same rule, it would be useless to them, but some rule armywide to help them compete)
In general all horde units (except Guardsmen and conscripts) are hilariously over-costed, specially as the introduction of AoC seriously defanged them.
Dudeface 804013 11364492 wrote:
5 intercessors - 100 points. 16 attacks soesnt matter who charges, 10 hits, 3 wounds, a slim chance one is saved but let's assume not. 27 points. Which I admit that's not a melee unit, intercessors are flat better, but their melee output is comparable. At 7 points they kill 23 points of orks, the orks kill 60 points of marines which seems OK.
The downside is dropping them to 7 points doesn't fix the root issue of boyz units.
The problem with this argument is that the marine player has to and often wants to run those intercessors, while the ork players, if he could, would run 0 of them. That is like those IG example where the IG or conscripts are show to be point for point inefficient. Which is all true, and nice, till one realises that they exist as cheap filler so that the real IG unit is something like a tank. Marines actualy have to play with their marines stuff, most other factions do not play with their troops and if they do, it often is some super skew, because the basic "faction" trooper is a open topped gunboat full of non basic weapons. Even for nids the basic trooper is warriors, and they too are taken to be cheap, with the majority of the list being different types of big monsters.
Marines are the faction with the highest amount of datasheets. A Marine player doesn't need to run intercessors, they can just run minimum squads of tacticals.
Also plenty of ork players love green tide lists, too bad they suck. The same goes for Tyranids, plenty of nid players would love to run swarm lists.
Dudeface 804013 11364492 wrote:
5 intercessors - 100 points. 16 attacks soesnt matter who charges, 10 hits, 3 wounds, a slim chance one is saved but let's assume not. 27 points. Which I admit that's not a melee unit, intercessors are flat better, but their melee output is comparable. At 7 points they kill 23 points of orks, the orks kill 60 points of marines which seems OK.
The downside is dropping them to 7 points doesn't fix the root issue of boyz units.
The problem with this argument is that the marine player has to and often wants to run those intercessors, while the ork players, if he could, would run 0 of them. That is like those IG example where the IG or conscripts are show to be point for point inefficient. Which is all true, and nice, till one realises that they exist as cheap filler so that the real IG unit is something like a tank. Marines actualy have to play with their marines stuff, most other factions do not play with their troops and if they do, it often is some super skew, because the basic "faction" trooper is a open topped gunboat full of non basic weapons. Even for nids the basic trooper is warriors, and they too are taken to be cheap, with the majority of the list being different types of big monsters.
I want to take ork boyz. I like alternating list styles for my fav army and have a low of models. I didn't paint over 500 ork boyz to have them sit on a shelf being useless (on a shelf in foam trays). A full green tide with nothing but infantry is truly a thing to behold on the tabletop except as the game stands the opponent kills 6 per squad to force morale then I lose 6 more per squad, rinse and repeat turn 2 killing 6 for an extra 6 to run since below half strength, then turn 3 there are only a handful of boyz left.
The argument that a marine HAS to bring intecessors when they have more and better more cost effective troop choices already (and had better ones before AoC was brought into the mix). To be clear I don't want marines nerfed, I want ork boyz buiffed, our other troops are gretchin (worst troop model per point in the game, and competes for worst stats per point period) or beast snagga boyz who are just slightly better but more expensive boyz with the same issues as normal boyz, not enough damage or survivability for the points.
My point there in the first post replying to was more that the person is saying ork boyz will beat marine troops in combat which... they don't really, 1/3 better performance if they get the charge is rather pathetic. Pre AoC the boyz did better but now the marines sort of hard counter orks
Dudeface 804013 11364492 wrote:
5 intercessors - 100 points. 16 attacks soesnt matter who charges, 10 hits, 3 wounds, a slim chance one is saved but let's assume not. 27 points. Which I admit that's not a melee unit, intercessors are flat better, but their melee output is comparable. At 7 points they kill 23 points of orks, the orks kill 60 points of marines which seems OK.
The downside is dropping them to 7 points doesn't fix the root issue of boyz units.
The problem with this argument is that the marine player has to and often wants to run those intercessors, while the ork players, if he could, would run 0 of them. That is like those IG example where the IG or conscripts are show to be point for point inefficient. Which is all true, and nice, till one realises that they exist as cheap filler so that the real IG unit is something like a tank. Marines actualy have to play with their marines stuff, most other factions do not play with their troops and if they do, it often is some super skew, because the basic "faction" trooper is a open topped gunboat full of non basic weapons. Even for nids the basic trooper is warriors, and they too are taken to be cheap, with the majority of the list being different types of big monsters.
I want to take ork boyz. I like alternating list styles for my fav army and have a low of models. I didn't paint over 500 ork boyz to have them sit on a shelf being useless (on a shelf in foam trays). A full green tide with nothing but infantry is truly a thing to behold on the tabletop except as the game stands the opponent kills 6 per squad to force morale then I lose 6 more per squad, rinse and repeat turn 2 killing 6 for an extra 6 to run since below half strength, then turn 3 there are only a handful of boyz left.
The argument that a marine HAS to bring intecessors when they have more and better more cost effective troop choices already (and had better ones before AoC was brought into the mix). To be clear I don't want marines nerfed, I want ork boyz buiffed, our other troops are gretchin (worst troop model per point in the game, and competes for worst stats per point period) or beast snagga boyz who are just slightly better but more expensive boyz with the same issues as normal boyz, not enough damage or survivability for the points.
My point there in the first post replying to was more that the person is saying ork boyz will beat marine troops in combat which... they don't really, 1/3 better performance if they get the charge is rather pathetic. Pre AoC the boyz did better but now the marines sort of hard counter orks
I'm a little on the fence about armour of contempt, I'm glad they went with a durability fix rather than arms-racing again, but it needed to be the game losing ap rather than power armour negating it. The 3+ and 2w is a decent defensive profile if ap-2 and d2 isn't everywhere.
Edit: for clarity a choppa should take 1 off a marines save imo and it would restore that balance a little, but I think ap has been handed out too readily of late, just like d2 has.
I am talking about faction realism here, in relation to how GW wrote already existing books. I play GK termintors, I like termintors, I don't like power armoured GK models. I also don't like NDKs, I like regular dreadnoughts esthetics a lot more. The problem is that, if I want to have a working list I shouldn't want to have termintors, other then paladins, in my army. So can I imagine that some ork player wants to play a green wave army, or even an army with 60-70 foot orks? Sure, but him wanting them to funtion and comparing them to units that do function, ends the same way as me wanting termintors to be as good as strikes or interceptors. Everything else is a lot of would have/should have etc on side of GW. Right now an unknown is an IG book and I guess we could speculate about that one. Will some new units be the optimal thing, will mecha or regular infantry be core of the army, and I mean in lists not in lore? only the playtesters and their friends know. with orks and marines we know what those armies are made out of, how they are build etc.
A real interesting argument could be one about orks vs marines in the aspect of ork units being less optimal, post AOC. something like a bladeguard/venguard vets comperation to manz etc.
Karol wrote: I am talking about faction realism here, in relation to how GW wrote already existing books. I play GK termintors, I like termintors, I don't like power armoured GK models. I also don't like NDKs, I like regular dreadnoughts esthetics a lot more. The problem is that, if I want to have a working list I shouldn't want to have termintors, other then paladins, in my army. So can I imagine that some ork player wants to play a green wave army, or even an army with 60-70 foot orks? Sure, but him wanting them to funtion and comparing them to units that do function, ends the same way as me wanting termintors to be as good as strikes or interceptors. Everything else is a lot of would have/should have etc on side of GW. Right now an unknown is an IG book and I guess we could speculate about that one. Will some new units be the optimal thing, will mecha or regular infantry be core of the army, and I mean in lists not in lore? only the playtesters and their friends know. with orks and marines we know what those armies are made out of, how they are build etc.
A real interesting argument could be one about orks vs marines in the aspect of ork units being less optimal, post AOC. something like a bladeguard/venguard vets comperation to manz etc.
sigh... this again
Terminator-heavy GK lists work, especially now that you get AoC. Just because theyre not the top tier OP build doesnt mean the lists cannot work
Insectum7 wrote: Out of curiosity I went back to 3rd/4th edition and did some math for Tau Firewarriors vs. Tacticals:
4 Tacticals for 60 points
6 Fire Warriors for 60 points
Fire Warriors shooting: 6×0.5×0.666×0.333×15= 9.98 point return
Tactical Marines firing: 4×0.666×0.666×0.5×10=8.8 point return.
Tau edge out the win, while also having greater range and therefore better Rapid Fire range as well.
Edit: Also, gosh those numbers are easy to calculate and look at. No doctrines, stratagems, mitigating circumstances, reroll buffs, etc. How refreshing!
In 3rd and 4th (and 5th, from what I remember), rapid fire range was 12" regardless of the actual range of the gun. The real advantage of the 30" range of the Pulse Rifle was the restriction on moving and shooting where if you moved with a rapid fire gun you could only shoot up to 12". So Fire Warriors could get two rounds of shooting off at other basic infantry before said unit could return fire with basic weapons (Fire Warriors shoot at space marine squad 30" away, Space Marines then move 6" forwards to get in maximum range but can only shoot up to 12" that turn, Fire Warriors shoot again, Space Marines can now return fire).
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
That's my point.
They are 50% more durable (against D1 shots anyway), but half the shooting. Neither one wants to be in melee, but regular Boltgun shooting is so bad that their melee is almost the same. So sure, if you want your shooty troops to spend half of their damage budget on melee... that just makes their role confused?
If you were given the option double your ranged shooting at the cost of not being able to melee at all, would you take it on a unit whose primary role is shooting? That's how budgets work.
That would be called a "Specialist" unit. Marine troops have historically been jack of all trades rather than specialists. Sadly in 8th and now into 9th Marine players are constantly arguing for why their Generalist troops choices should be better than assault oriented infantry in CC and better than ranged specialists at range point for point.
No. Pretty simple counter argument really. If your point revolves around focusing on a specific weapon system that impacts Marines more than basically any other faction and which can only be taken by that faction and you are using that as a balance point...no. That is a piss poor argument.
Definitely not useless. AM sergeants can't equip a lasgun for some reason, so a 1pt boltgun is the only way to give your sergeant a 24" rapid fire weapon that can contribute at ranges over 12" (+1S relative to a lasgun, but can't FRFSRF).
Definitely was useless. Nobody did this except to spend their last few points remaining because it is a USELESS upgrade. Going from 1 shot at 12 at S3 to 1 Shot at S4 at 24 sounds good but on a 6pt model it makes no sense. So again, nobody took it for any reason except they had a few points left over until it became FREE. So again, using this as the basis of an argument for buffing ALL Bolters because IG Sergeants need them is again a piss poor argument.
I_am_a_Spoon wrote: But that's not a case for maintaining the status quo. If anything, it supports the notion that the status quo should change.
They have a purpose, they aren't under powered and they function fairly well. So this is again an argument based on assumption that sisters of battle need their basic troops choices to do more ranged dmg as opposed to being ablative wounds for their special/heavy weapons. And if you think that is a reason to change the status quo...well I have bad news for you, that has been a tried and tested design mechanic for decades.
Bobthehero wrote: People, in general, go for the fluffy interpretation they prefer (I do that, too).
When someone wants changes to the game according to the lore, they really should be saying according to MY prefered lore, because it's so dang inconsistent. Personally, I prefer the Marines to be a lot more toned down than most, for reasons explained in my previous post in this thread.
Well said Bob, this might be the smartest post in this thread. using fluff to push a point is stupid since the fluff doesn't even agree with itself.
The problem with this argument is that the marine player has to and often wants to run those intercessors, while the ork players, if he could, would run 0 of them. That is like those IG example where the IG or conscripts are show to be point for point inefficient. Which is all true, and nice, till one realises that they exist as cheap filler so that the real IG unit is something like a tank. Marines actualy have to play with their marines stuff, most other factions do not play with their troops and if they do, it often is some super skew, because the basic "faction" trooper is a open topped gunboat full of non basic weapons. Even for nids the basic trooper is warriors, and they too are taken to be cheap, with the majority of the list being different types of big monsters.
Well thank god Karol is here to inform us stupid Ork players that Marines want to take Intercessors but Ork players don't want to take boyz. I mean...its not like we just had all of 8th edition where the most competitive ork build was Green Tide backed up by characters...or 7th edition before that where our "real" super formation was called the Green Tide and consisted of 10 units of boyz and a Warboss. Yeah, we totally don't like the idea of massive blobs of Boyz. And players like me and Jidmah absolutely abhor the idea of taking Trukk Boyz and Battlewagon boyz.
One day Karol you will come up with a good argument. I'm cheering for you bud.
Dudeface 804013 11364492 wrote:
5 intercessors - 100 points. 16 attacks soesnt matter who charges, 10 hits, 3 wounds, a slim chance one is saved but let's assume not. 27 points. Which I admit that's not a melee unit, intercessors are flat better, but their melee output is comparable. At 7 points they kill 23 points of orks, the orks kill 60 points of marines which seems OK.
The downside is dropping them to 7 points doesn't fix the root issue of boyz units.
The problem with this argument is that the marine player has to and often wants to run those intercessors, while the ork players, if he could, would run 0 of them. That is like those IG example where the IG or conscripts are show to be point for point inefficient. Which is all true, and nice, till one realises that they exist as cheap filler so that the real IG unit is something like a tank. Marines actualy have to play with their marines stuff, most other factions do not play with their troops and if they do, it often is some super skew, because the basic "faction" trooper is a open topped gunboat full of non basic weapons. Even for nids the basic trooper is warriors, and they too are taken to be cheap, with the majority of the list being different types of big monsters.
I want to take ork boyz. I like alternating list styles for my fav army and have a low of models. I didn't paint over 500 ork boyz to have them sit on a shelf being useless (on a shelf in foam trays). A full green tide with nothing but infantry is truly a thing to behold on the tabletop except as the game stands the opponent kills 6 per squad to force morale then I lose 6 more per squad, rinse and repeat turn 2 killing 6 for an extra 6 to run since below half strength, then turn 3 there are only a handful of boyz left.
The argument that a marine HAS to bring intecessors when they have more and better more cost effective troop choices already (and had better ones before AoC was brought into the mix). To be clear I don't want marines nerfed, I want ork boyz buiffed, our other troops are gretchin (worst troop model per point in the game, and competes for worst stats per point period) or beast snagga boyz who are just slightly better but more expensive boyz with the same issues as normal boyz, not enough damage or survivability for the points.
My point there in the first post replying to was more that the person is saying ork boyz will beat marine troops in combat which... they don't really, 1/3 better performance if they get the charge is rather pathetic. Pre AoC the boyz did better but now the marines sort of hard counter orks
I'm a little on the fence about armour of contempt, I'm glad they went with a durability fix rather than arms-racing again, but it needed to be the game losing ap rather than power armour negating it. The 3+ and 2w is a decent defensive profile if ap-2 and d2 isn't everywhere.
Edit: for clarity a choppa should take 1 off a marines save imo and it would restore that balance a little, but I think ap has been handed out too readily of late, just like d2 has.
I'm fine with many weapons getting AP-1, but they either increased in strength or got D2 or get easily met bonuses.
Whats wrong with the average marine bolter profile? You hit on 3s, wound infantry on 3s, and most non-power armor factions are saving on 4+ or worse. Marines get extra AP during the tacticool doctrine, and unless its an AOC mirror then the AP actually counts. Seems quite good when you compare it to other troop choices who aren't nearly as durable as marines for the cost.
DominayTrix wrote: Whats wrong with the average marine bolter profile? You hit on 3s, wound infantry on 3s, and most non-power armor factions are saving on 4+ or worse. Marines get extra AP during the tacticool doctrine, and unless its an AOC mirror then the AP actually counts. Seems quite good when you compare it to other troop choices who aren't nearly as durable as marines for the cost.
A bolter wounds *some* infantry on 3's, not all bolters are carried by loyalist Marines, if the bolter was OK, why do people take intercessors over tac marines?
DominayTrix wrote: Whats wrong with the average marine bolter profile? You hit on 3s, wound infantry on 3s, and most non-power armor factions are saving on 4+ or worse. Marines get extra AP during the tacticool doctrine, and unless its an AOC mirror then the AP actually counts. Seems quite good when you compare it to other troop choices who aren't nearly as durable as marines for the cost.
We're talking about marines, the bulk of SM players always complains about their army not being top tier. Now that they had a boost to their save of course they demand a boost in their AP to counter that. Nothing new here.
Bolters are perfectly fine as they are, I'd actually even remove the doctrines entirely. It's a couple of enemy anti infantry weapons that MIGHT be a bit too powerful and should be toned down, not the other way around. If bolters get better, there's a plethora of basic weapons that would need a buff as well, nullifying that buff on bolters.
DominayTrix wrote: Whats wrong with the average marine bolter profile? You hit on 3s, wound infantry on 3s, and most non-power armor factions are saving on 4+ or worse. Marines get extra AP during the tacticool doctrine, and unless its an AOC mirror then the AP actually counts. Seems quite good when you compare it to other troop choices who aren't nearly as durable as marines for the cost.
A bolter wounds *some* infantry on 3's, not all bolters are carried by loyalist Marines, if the bolter was OK, why do people take intercessors over tac marines?
Because better standard guns for minimal (too low) an upprice, also probably better stratagem integration.
DominayTrix wrote: Whats wrong with the average marine bolter profile? You hit on 3s, wound infantry on 3s, and most non-power armor factions are saving on 4+ or worse. Marines get extra AP during the tacticool doctrine, and unless its an AOC mirror then the AP actually counts. Seems quite good when you compare it to other troop choices who aren't nearly as durable as marines for the cost.
A bolter wounds *some* infantry on 3's, not all bolters are carried by loyalist Marines, if the bolter was OK, why do people take intercessors over tac marines?
Some combination of preferring the models and a misguided notion of what makes a unit good. Tacs are generally superior because of their access to heavy/specials.
How has this gone 36 pages? NO, Bolters do not need better profiles. Space Marines are already fluff breaking as well as game breaking. Somehow a lowly Initiate of the Iron Fists can shoot a bolter BETTER than a 500 year old Custodian Guard, who has been in more battles than the Initiate will ever see. Bolter Discipline is dumb, and needs to go away. Can we just stop trying to improve the shooting?
Considering that marines struggled to dominate the game in 9th ed, even when they were the only ones with a codex, the claim that they are somehow "game breaking" sounds odd. The Imperial Fist example is an even more odd. They are one of the worse marine armies in the game. With a rule set writen assuming they can do things, which they can't do since the doctrine got nerfed way back in 8th ed.
The argument put forth also, somehow skips the fact that there are factions, who make mass use of bolters and which do not have access to doctrines.
Karol wrote: Considering that marines struggled to dominate the game in 9th ed, even when they were the only ones with a codex, the claim that they are somehow "game breaking" sounds odd. The Imperial Fist example is an even more odd. They are one of the worse marine armies in the game. With a rule set writen assuming they can do things, which they can't do since the doctrine got nerfed way back in 8th ed.
The argument put forth also, somehow skips the fact that there are factions, who make mass use of bolters and which do not have access to doctrines.
I don't remember 8th-9th Iron fists, but for a while, they had infinite shooting bolters. Then they had flat shoot twice. Then they had something else. They've always had the best "shooting" of all the Factions, I would say. Especially concerning Bolters. I would love for ALL Bolter weapons to be uniform, no matter what it's duck taped to, who's holding it, or how the other person feels about the Emperor. Bolter buffs based off faction are dumb, and have given rise to the mindless growth of "Special bolters". We should just go back to Bolt Pistols, Bolters, and Storm Bolters. Feth all the Bolt Rifles, X-pattern Bolters, 30k Bolter variants, and Primaris Bolters.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How has this gone 36 pages? NO, Bolters do not need better profiles. Space Marines are already fluff breaking as well as game breaking. Somehow a lowly Initiate of the Iron Fists can shoot a bolter BETTER than a 500 year old Custodian Guard, who has been in more battles than the Initiate will ever see. Bolter Discipline is dumb, and needs to go away. Can we just stop trying to improve the shooting?
How is the initiate shooting better? Last I checked the Custodes had BS2+ and had the AP-1 innately.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How has this gone 36 pages? NO, Bolters do not need better profiles. Space Marines are already fluff breaking as well as game breaking. Somehow a lowly Initiate of the Iron Fists can shoot a bolter BETTER than a 500 year old Custodian Guard, who has been in more battles than the Initiate will ever see. Bolter Discipline is dumb, and needs to go away. Can we just stop trying to improve the shooting?
How is the initiate shooting better? Last I checked the Custodes had BS2+ and had the AP-1 innately.
The standard initiate can use bolter discipline, Bolter Drill, and Rapid Fire. All the Guardian gets is 2 shots, and maybe Rapid Reactions. And it's baked into the cost. The Custodians lost their archotech munitions, their double shoot strat, and their Shoot again strat.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How has this gone 36 pages? NO, Bolters do not need better profiles. Space Marines are already fluff breaking as well as game breaking. Somehow a lowly Initiate of the Iron Fists can shoot a bolter BETTER than a 500 year old Custodian Guard, who has been in more battles than the Initiate will ever see. Bolter Discipline is dumb, and needs to go away. Can we just stop trying to improve the shooting?
How is the initiate shooting better? Last I checked the Custodes had BS2+ and had the AP-1 innately.
The standard initiate can use bolter discipline, Bolter Drill, and Rapid Fire. All the Guardian gets is 2 shots, and maybe Rapid Reactions. And it's baked into the cost. The Custodians lost their archotech munitions, their double shoot strat, and their Shoot again strat.
One of which requires being still, and doesn't matter since you arent trying to factor in the random buffs from the Salvus Karate stance.
You're not proving your point like you think you are to be honest.
Honestly, there has been nothing funnier in this thread than someone saying, without a hint of jest, that bolters are fine because Imperial Fists exist.
Vilgeir wrote: Honestly, there has been nothing funnier in this thread than someone saying, without a hint of jest, that bolters are fine because Imperial Fists exist.
No, its that bolters are too good because imperial fists are better than custodes*
There's a lot wrong in everything fezzik said, start to end.
The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Not specifically bolters, but troops carrying the most basic weapons. Give them a unique role in the army. It's the same problem most troops currently have and the reasons are obj sec being not particularly useful and easy access to cheap spammable platforms carrying more effective weapons.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
I don't know about troops being a non-factor, just a minimal factor. I think the main issue is that the game is too fast and too lethal - and you therefore want to lean further in that direction. Meanwhile, not unreasonably, GW have wanted the gap between elites and troops to be greater than it was in say 8th edition. (With some hit and miss).
So for example, if your thinking "bring multiple guardian defender squads" the obvious question you have to answer is "why not max out dire avengers first?" With Boyz you can argue (certainly before they went up in points) that you were mad to bring any before maxing out Kommandos. By contrast in other times these units have costed considerably more than the alternatives - so the conclusion was the other way round.
Really its hard to see how GW could ever write rules such that you are incentivised to both take very few troops - or take all the troops. You can draft rules (and the CP changes I think do this somewhat) to the tune of "thy shalt take a battalion" - in which case you have to have 3 troops units. But that's taking player choice away. You can go down to things like "You can only score Primary points with troops" - but it seems kind of lame.
Do we really want say the new Chaos Codex to encourage you to bring 30-40 Legionnaires along, representing 30-40% of a 2k list? I kind of think it would be cool - and if that's what you want go nuts. I don't want it to be like today where I feel you'd basically be committing suicide. But equally I don't want it to be obligatory.
Tyel wrote: I don't know about troops being a non-factor, just a minimal factor. I think the main issue is that the game is too fast and too lethal - and you therefore want to lean further in that direction. Meanwhile, not unreasonably, GW have wanted the gap between elites and troops to be greater than it was in say 8th edition. (With some hit and miss).
So for example, if your thinking "bring multiple guardian defender squads" the obvious question you have to answer is "why not max out dire avengers first?" With Boyz you can argue (certainly before they went up in points) that you were mad to bring any before maxing out Kommandos. By contrast in other times these units have costed considerably more than the alternatives - so the conclusion was the other way round.
Really its hard to see how GW could ever write rules such that you are incentivised to both take very few troops - or take all the troops. You can draft rules (and the CP changes I think do this somewhat) to the tune of "thy shalt take a battalion" - in which case you have to have 3 troops units. But that's taking player choice away. You can go down to things like "You can only score Primary points with troops" - but it seems kind of lame.
Do we really want say the new Chaos Codex to encourage you to bring 30-40 Legionnaires along, representing 30-40% of a 2k list? I kind of think it would be cool - and if that's what you want go nuts. I don't want it to be like today where I feel you'd basically be committing suicide. But equally I don't want it to be obligatory.
I honestly think it shouldn't be mandatory but it should be preferable, an army without troops forming a strong backbone should find it an uphill battle on objectives (somehow), which obsec theoretically should enable that, but as you say the lethality race has rendered that fairly moot, alongside an ever growing suite of options to turn it off/grant it to none troops.
Personally, I want my chaos space marine army to be seen fielding chaos space marines and not just for funsies but as a legitimate option.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
It doesn't make small arms obsolete by any stretch, that train of thought is exactly what's caused the arms race with ap and damage we have now. A resilient army that's either heavily outnumbered and/or pillow fisted is a perfectly legitimate niche to have, but obviously people game around killing marines so they want bigger guns. We're now full circle to the point where the marines durability didn't matter, so naturally the want was to match the arms race the rest of the game has.
I mean 150 rounds is 1350 points of bolter wielders to kill a (lets be generous) stock predator destructor at 140 for a 10.4% return. A 9.6% return if you shot an annihilator.
The 180 rounds is 1620 points of bolter wielders to kill 10 naked tac marines at 180 for a 11.1% return
They're still better at killing the infantry in isolation.
What this shows is that a combination of:
A - the durability of a marine is good against small arms
B - the bolter sucks against all targets given in the example
C - predators stock are super cheap due to not being good enough
D - they correctly occupy the niche of the durable but offensively limited basic trooper in isolation
If a *tank* is only <1% more durable per point against small arms than your infantry, perhaps the problem is the infantry are too tough (or the tank isn't tough enough).
And of course everyone is going to spec into killing Marines.
Plasma gun > flamer in 7th because it killed Marines
Plasma gun > flamer in 9th because it killed Marines.
To make Marines feel elite, they have to actually BE elite. And I am not talking within an army, I am talking within the range of foes to face. If the most common foe was, say, Orks then you would probably see a dramatically different preferred weapons loadout.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If a *tank* is only <1% more durable per point against small arms than your infantry, perhaps the problem is the infantry are too tough (or the tank isn't tough enough).
And of course everyone is going to spec into killing Marines.
Plasma gun > flamer in 7th because it killed Marines
Plasma gun > flamer in 9th because it killed Marines.
To make Marines feel elite, they have to actually BE elite. And I am not talking within an army, I am talking within the range of foes to face. If the most common foe was, say, Orks then you would probably see a dramatically different preferred weapons loadout.
I'm confused if you're misusing the term elite to denote less common. Marines can be the most common army as long as their profile is elite enough that the weapons used against them are ineffective against the range of opponents outside the army. If an army geared to kill marines was incapable of handling units of gaunts on a basic level then that would fit. Instead everything is so killy and specialise it simply doesn't matter.
But yes the predator needs some love, that's the biggest takeaway.
It takes on average 648~ BS3+ bolter shots to kill a Leman Russ. I'm not really sure what in isolation this tells you about the game though.
I don't think bolters and similar light guns are obsolete because marines got 2 wounds. Its because "horde units" - which previously had to be dealt with by such weapons - have largely been pushed out of the meta. GW have handed out far too many higher S, AP and damage attacks at too low a price. There are so many units which charge, have a bazillion attacks, and so just mow down low T low save 1 wound models.
It would be interesting if see what the meta would look like if Tyranid players all pivoted to triple Tervigon, 180 Termagant carpet lists. But I suspect they don't do it because taking it out would not be all that difficult for certain competitive builds.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
Took far less Bolters than that when they had AV10 on the rear.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
Took far less Bolters than that when they had AV10 on the rear.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
Took far less Bolters than that when they had AV10 on the rear.
Only if you got behind them
It was pitifully easy to do that though. Partially why I'm glad we don't have AV now, but that's a whole different topic.
It was pitifully easy to do that though. Partially why I'm glad we don't have AV now, but that's a whole different topic.
Were that I had the kind of opponents who made it easy to get behind their tanks - and I am fortunate in not being someone who made it easy to get behind *my* tanks.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How has this gone 36 pages? NO, Bolters do not need better profiles. Space Marines are already fluff breaking as well as game breaking. Somehow a lowly Initiate of the Iron Fists can shoot a bolter BETTER than a 500 year old Custodian Guard, who has been in more battles than the Initiate will ever see. Bolter Discipline is dumb, and needs to go away. Can we just stop trying to improve the shooting?
Well, there's a reason the Emperor used Astartes for the Great Crusade and not Custodes.
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
It doesn't make small arms obsolete by any stretch, that train of thought is exactly what's caused the arms race with ap and damage we have now. A resilient army that's either heavily outnumbered and/or pillow fisted is a perfectly legitimate niche to have, but obviously people game around killing marines so they want bigger guns. We're now full circle to the point where the marines durability didn't matter, so naturally the want was to match the arms race the rest of the game has.
I have to disagree. Going from, what, 14pts to 18pts in exchange for twice the durability hardly makes it likely that you'll be significantly outnumbered by anything other than Imperial Guard. Especially with many other troops also getting substantial increases in cost, and with far less to show for it.
Indeed, you even say it yourself - people game around taking Marines, so when Marines get buffed to the point that basic weapons are inefficient against them, people take heavier weapons to compensate. And yes, I completely agree that this is what started the trend in increased AP and damage, I just don't understand why you seem intent on ignoring the first link in that chain (i.e. Marines getting an extra wound).
In any case, I think what you might be neglecting is that basic weapons already had a limited range of targets against which they could be effective. They're fine against stuff like Guardsmen and 1-wound Marines, but as soon as you start moving to units with better toughness, more wounds, and/or better armour saves, they get really efficient really fast. So when you take the most common infantry in the game and make them really efficient against those weapons, that's a massive blow for both basic weapons and the units that carry them (predominantly troops). Plus, you have the same issue as AoC causes - it's not even just that you have fewer legitimate targets, it's also that you have to factor in many of the most common armies having no legitimate targets for small-arms fire at all.
You can argue that there are other factors, too, but I do think this is a very important one.
Lastly, there's the fact that this sort of thing can easily turn into a vicious cycle. If some armies begin to move away from troops for whatever reason, then that means fewer bodies around that are vulnerable to small-arms fire. This, in turn, means there is even less reason to include troops, which means even fewer bodies etc., etc.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: AOC was a bone tossed to a dead dog. No one is seriously considering the majority of Space Marine Factions.
i mean some space marine chapters are always going to be below 50% of the power band.
space marins are 16/30 factions so they could occupy the top 16 and somebody would complain that their faction is below the halfway mark at 16th.
That said yes they are not in the best place right now. you can look at them on 40k fight club and see tournament results are not favorable for most flavors of marines
Grey knights, deathwatch, white scars, salamanders, and thousand sons are doing above average.
chaos marines, blood angels, space wolves, dark angels and deathguard are middling.
black templar, ravenguard, imperial fists, crimson fists, iron hands, and ultramarines are doing poorly.
5 strong, 5 middling, 6 weak (I barely count crimson fists as a faction btw so almost 5/5/5)
That said they struggle vs the heavy hitters right now.
Tyranids who have the tools to wipe the floor with them, though they have the tools to wipe everybody.
All flavors of eldar seem to have books designed to fight power armor.
Tau leafblowers anything that isn't tyranids or space elves easily and note the higher tier marines have tools or units to deal with them.
middle tier
Sisters are somehow better marines than marines, same for custodes
gsc play keep away and well enough to confuse marines.
low tier
on the other hand AOC made marines an already mid tier army better against mostly the lower tier armies kicking necrons, orks, demons, knights (both flavors though irrelevant with new codex about to drop), mechanicus and imperial guard. meanwhiel against the top codexes Aoc is just a cute rule that mildly annoyed them
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: AOC was a bone tossed to a dead dog. No one is seriously considering the majority of Space Marine Factions.
i mean some space marine chapters are always going to be below 50% of the power band.
space marins are 16/30 factions so they could occupy the top 16 and somebody would complain that their faction is below the halfway mark at 16th.
That said yes they are not in the best place right now. you can look at them on 40k fight club and see tournament results are not favorable for most flavors of marines
Grey knights, deathwatch, white scars, salamanders, and thousand sons are doing above average.
chaos marines, blood angels, space wolves, dark angels and deathguard are middling.
black templar, ravenguard, imperial fists, crimson fists, iron hands, and ultramarines are doing poorly.
5 strong, 5 middling, 6 weak (I barely count crimson fists as a faction btw so almost 5/5/5)
That said they struggle vs the heavy hitters right now.
Tyranids who have the tools to wipe the floor with them, though they have the tools to wipe everybody.
All flavors of eldar seem to have books designed to fight power armor.
Tau leafblowers anything that isn't tyranids or space elves easily and note the higher tier marines have tools or units to deal with them.
middle tier
Sisters are somehow better marines than marines, same for custodes
gsc play keep away and well enough to confuse marines.
low tier
on the other hand AOC made marines an already mid tier army better against mostly the lower tier armies kicking necrons, orks, demons, knights (both flavors though irrelevant with new codex about to drop), mechanicus and imperial guard. meanwhiel against the top codexes Aoc is just a cute rule that mildly annoyed them
I knew someone might try to break this down by faction, and thank you for doing so in a respectful way instead of just saying "WuT AbOuT GReYKnIghtS?!?!! HUR HUR, yOu DUM!"
Yes, a third of Space Marines, the third that contains Matt Wards Super Special Silver Knights, The Death Watch which have rules specifically designed to help them against the current Meta, and I have no idea why Whitescars and Salamanders are above average.
That being said, the majority of Astartes Factions right now are still kinda crap. I am sorry that I started making an all Primaris Blood Angels force, but I stopped playing 9th. So who knows. Maybe they'l suddenly make Assault Intercessor Chainswords D2.
White scars are fast with tools to get where they need vs tau and eldar.
Salamanders have some of the best tools to beef up the best units in the codex eeking the best performance of vanilla marines.
Ironically with deathguard (this is just an interesting aside) its one of the few positive matchups for orks as they seem to have the lowest win rate against the most common xenos enemy.
Blood angels are above average as a codex but not by much, middle of the middle for power, they are one of the better choppy marine builds in an edition where choppy marines are just fair to middling. also a funny enough situation where their tools actually can be used to great effect vs the current big bad Tyranids, but struggle against to many other armies to reach top tables.
Saying "the majority of marines are kind of crap" when they have 5 top 3rd armies(mostly the bottom of this 3rd), 5 mid 3rd, and 6 bottom 3rd (mostly the top of this 3rd) is just not correct. the faction as a whole basically defines the mid tier. Marines are not overly powerful but not overly flawed.
I would love to see the weaker factions get buffs to be able to match average marines. Then nerfs to the top armies to be more in line there. Of space marines types I think only really grey knights and thousand sons need some minor nerfs, the others placing really is mostly down to meta matchups... except maybe ultramarines and imperial fists who need a chapter tactic buffs
Tyel wrote: The issue continues to be that no one makes mass use of bolters - and this is likely to continue to be the case.
You could obviously buff up bolters to the point mass tactical marines, Sisters, Chaos marines were "meta" - but its unclear why you'd want to.
Even examples of better infantry guns are generally not spammed. Eldar do not spam Guardians for instance. Tau do not spam fire warriors. Tyranids may be today's terror of the tables - but it isn't on the back of mass fleshborers.
You get back to the point that you could boost bolters to say S5 - and it would have almost no impact on the game. Beyond being a further ratchet up in the power level. ("Well if bolters are S5, a Heavy bolter must be S6... and if a heavy bolter is S6 then....")
You're right, but I don't think being in a situation where your basic infantry is a none factor in the game isn't a good state. Ideally it doesn't want to be accomplished via buffing the gak out of everything, but there needs to be something that makes people want bolters in their army, not in place of specialist units, but they should have enough value that you don't just take bare minimums to meet detachment needs.
Well, wht do you expect when everyone was clamouring for the most ubiquitous infantry in the game to be highly resistant to small arms fire?
Nailed it.
Did anyone expect giving Marines 2 wounds would accomplish anything other than making small arms (including the Marine's themselves) obsolete overnight?
For reference: it takes approximately 150 bolter shots to kill a Predator (you know, a main battle tank), while it takes 180 to kill 10 Marines (you know, the same faction's basic infantry).
It doesn't make small arms obsolete by any stretch, that train of thought is exactly what's caused the arms race with ap and damage we have now. A resilient army that's either heavily outnumbered and/or pillow fisted is a perfectly legitimate niche to have, but obviously people game around killing marines so they want bigger guns. We're now full circle to the point where the marines durability didn't matter, so naturally the want was to match the arms race the rest of the game has.
I have to disagree. Going from, what, 14pts to 18pts in exchange for twice the durability hardly makes it likely that you'll be significantly outnumbered by anything other than Imperial Guard. Especially with many other troops also getting substantial increases in cost, and with far less to show for it.
Indeed, you even say it yourself - people game around taking Marines, so when Marines get buffed to the point that basic weapons are inefficient against them, people take heavier weapons to compensate. And yes, I completely agree that this is what started the trend in increased AP and damage, I just don't understand why you seem intent on ignoring the first link in that chain (i.e. Marines getting an extra wound).
In any case, I think what you might be neglecting is that basic weapons already had a limited range of targets against which they could be effective. They're fine against stuff like Guardsmen and 1-wound Marines, but as soon as you start moving to units with better toughness, more wounds, and/or better armour saves, they get really efficient really fast. So when you take the most common infantry in the game and make them really efficient against those weapons, that's a massive blow for both basic weapons and the units that carry them (predominantly troops). Plus, you have the same issue as AoC causes - it's not even just that you have fewer legitimate targets, it's also that you have to factor in many of the most common armies having no legitimate targets for small-arms fire at all.
You can argue that there are other factors, too, but I do think this is a very important one.
Lastly, there's the fact that this sort of thing can easily turn into a vicious cycle. If some armies begin to move away from troops for whatever reason, then that means fewer bodies around that are vulnerable to small-arms fire. This, in turn, means there is even less reason to include troops, which means even fewer bodies etc., etc.
I am in agreement with basically everything vipod says here.
Marines should have never gone to 1w, and AoC is just the cherry on top in terms of gak escalation.
Saying "the majority of marines are kind of crap" when they have 5 top 3rd armies(mostly the bottom of this 3rd), 5 mid 3rd, and 6 bottom 3rd (mostly the top of this 3rd) is just not correct. the faction as a whole basically defines the mid tier. Marines are not overly powerful but not overly flawed.
That sounds like someone explaining that just because someone from the team made it to 6th place, them being 10th and lower is okey. I have seen it and the reaction of any trainer or sponsor is the same , unless you are like mob sponsored or the son of someone big in the sports union. Take how many eldar get and got in to top in 9th ed, and then compare it to how many different marines got in to top 8th. The difference is staggaring, Specialy when the time spans are concerned. We went , in 9th, from harlis being above everyone in early 9th, then DE being above everyone, then Ad mecha and orks matching DE for a short time, only for them to get nerfed and DE shoot up in wins back again, to then see the craziness which was custodes, eldar, tau and now tyranid codex. Marines couldn't even get a full domination of the playfield, when they were the only faction with codex books in 9th ed. And they had all the early months of 9th dedicated just to them.
Saying "the majority of marines are kind of crap" when they have 5 top 3rd armies(mostly the bottom of this 3rd), 5 mid 3rd, and 6 bottom 3rd (mostly the top of this 3rd) is just not correct. the faction as a whole basically defines the mid tier. Marines are not overly powerful but not overly flawed.
That sounds like someone explaining that just because someone from the team made it to 6th place, them being 10th and lower is okey. I have seen it and the reaction of any trainer or sponsor is the same , unless you are like mob sponsored or the son of someone big in the sports union. Take how many eldar get and got in to top in 9th ed, and then compare it to how many different marines got in to top 8th. The difference is staggaring, Specialy when the time spans are concerned. We went , in 9th, from harlis being above everyone in early 9th, then DE being above everyone, then Ad mecha and orks matching DE for a short time, only for them to get nerfed and DE shoot up in wins back again, to then see the craziness which was custodes, eldar, tau and now tyranid codex. Marines couldn't even get a full domination of the playfield, when they were the only faction with codex books in 9th ed. And they had all the early months of 9th dedicated just to them.
We have very different memories regarding the end of 8th and beginning of 9th. Here's a refresher from Jan 2020: https://www.goonhammer.com/meta-analysis-the-lvo-40k-championship/ Marines were 46% of top 5 finishes. Here's one from October 2020, shortly after 9th released: https://www.goonhammer.com/the-october-2020-40k-meta-review/ Marines absolutely got their chance to dominate and have consistently been no less than B tier all of 9th while lots of factions were/are allowed to chill at 40% or lower for years.
A bolter wounds *some* infantry on 3's, not all bolters are carried by loyalist Marines, if the bolter was OK, why do people take intercessors over tac marines?
Probably for the same reason I take more Kommandos than I do Boyz. There will always be a better option at a specific target or meta. Your argument is getting dangerously close to "Bolters should be good at everything" and even when that happens there will be units in the elite/heavy slot which are better and as such will be taken significantly more than your base tac Marine with his bolter.
Karol wrote: Considering that marines struggled to dominate the game in 9th ed, even when they were the only ones with a codex, the claim that they are somehow "game breaking" sounds odd. The Imperial Fist example is an even more odd. They are one of the worse marine armies in the game. With a rule set writen assuming they can do things, which they can't do since the doctrine got nerfed way back in 8th ed.
The argument put forth also, somehow skips the fact that there are factions, who make mass use of bolters and which do not have access to doctrines.
Key words here "Struggled". As in it was an effort...but they were still dominating early 9th along with Harlies as someone else pointed out. It wasn't until DE and Ad Mech got their codex's that SM fell off hard....as did literally everyone else. I'll also point out that generally speaking the first codex is usually the weakest in the edition. 7th edition Orkz were...bad. The difference for SMs is that you get constant updates/buffs to make up for that shortfall AKA AoC.
The only factions outside SM who make "Mass use of bolters" are Sisters of battle who are a tiny faction and don't need better bolters as their tournament results show and Chaos Space Marines who are likely to get something nice in their new codex which is coming soon. As far as why they haven't already gotten something for their bolters like Marines got....ummm....they still haven't gotten 2 wounds
We're talking about marines, the bulk of SM players always complains about their army not being top tier. Now that they had a boost to their save of course they demand a boost in their AP to counter that. Nothing new here.
Bolters are perfectly fine as they are, I'd actually even remove the doctrines entirely. It's a couple of enemy anti infantry weapons that MIGHT be a bit too powerful and should be toned down, not the other way around. If bolters get better, there's a plethora of basic weapons that would need a buff as well, nullifying that buff on bolters.
Its almost like we have a long storied history of SM players moaning about durability, and as soon as they get it moving the goal posts to complain about their weapons not doing enough dmg.
SM already went to 2W and now have AoC which nerfs most factions basic weapons by 100% but that isn't good enough for them, now they want to complain that there bolters don't do enough dmg.
I'm confused if you're misusing the term elite to denote less common. Marines can be the most common army as long as their profile is elite enough that the weapons used against them are ineffective against the range of opponents outside the army. If an army geared to kill marines was incapable of handling units of gaunts on a basic level then that would fit. Instead everything is so killy and specialise it simply doesn't matter.
But yes the predator needs some love, that's the biggest takeaway.
Glad you brought this up dude. Marines can be the most common and still be elite for the very reason you mentioned. Want to know why that won't happen? Because after 8th Marine players lead the charge in complaining about how Horde armies were stupid, slow and made them have to bring anti-horde units which was stupid because they wanted to be spec'd into killing Knights not hordes. It wasn't fair for those poor Marine players to have to take more Bolters instead of Plasma/Melta/Lascannons. Put another way, Knights were ok to skew because reasons, but horde was just too much for those Marine players to handle and therefore they had to be nerfed. Which is why the GAME rules were changed to make hordes untenable, and with every new codex that used to have horde units coming out, you can see GW wants hordes to be nerfed. So with that in mind you are now complaining that your basic infantry weapons don't have a target worth shooting...well congrats, you guys did that to yourselves
It doesn't make small arms obsolete by any stretch, that train of thought is exactly what's caused the arms race with ap and damage we have now.
Yes, yes it does. lets go over this again for you. In 4th edition, to kill 1 Marine with Shootas it took 9 shoota boyz. 9 shoota boyz = 18 shots, = 6 hits = 3 wounds = 1 failed armor save. 9 shoota boyz at the time was 54pts, a Tac Marine was about 15pts. So 54pts to kill 15pts, that is a 0.27ppd trade off. To kill that same Marine with shootas today its now 18 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shoota boyz = 36 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds and 2 failed armor saves for 1 dead Marine (Math changes to 12 Shoota boyz at half range) that is 162pts of shoota boyz to kill 18pts of Marine that is 0.11ppd. So why the ever loving feth would i take small arms when my most common target is roughly 2.5x harder to kill points wise? while at the same time, to assuage Marines complaining that Orkz were too hard to kill en-mass the game rules and faction rules have changed to the point where my Boyz are actually worse point for point than ever before? So again, to summarize, my "Small arms" are in fact obsolete to the point where nobody takes them anymore.
Dudeface wrote: A resilient army that's either heavily outnumbered and/or pillow fisted is a perfectly legitimate niche to have, but obviously people game around killing marines so they want bigger guns. We're now full circle to the point where the marines durability didn't matter, so naturally the want was to match the arms race the rest of the game has.
So again, Marines complained they didn't have tough troops because everyone was taking AP-3 so Marines got a 2nd wound, now your bolters do basically no dmg, especially when combined with AoC so now you want Bolters to be better at killing Marines and the other factions who got a significantly smaller durability boost to compensate for the original buff to Bolters (Doctrines and double tap range). I'll do this for fun. 4th edition, to kill 1 Ork boy it took 1.5 Marines at half range or 3 at Max range. 3 shots = 2 hits = 1 wound = 1 Dead Ork. 1.5 Marines was 22.5pts, 3 Marines = 45pts. Half range it was 0.266ppd, at max range it was 0.133ppd. In 9th edition, without doctrines, with just normal bolter it takes 2.7 Marines double tapping. 2.7 Marines = 5.4 shots = 3.6 hits = 1.2 wounds = 1 dead Ork boy. 2.7 Marines = 48.6pts, so its now 0.18ppd So to summarize, Current day Marines are now doing MORE dmg at 13-24' range and less dmg at half range. Add in tac doctrine and chapter buffs and its significantly more dmg, add in easy access to re-roll hits/wounds and its even better. So all told those Marine with their "crappy bolters' are doing significantly more dmg than before, especially at range.
Dudeface wrote: What this shows is that a combination of: A - the durability of a marine is good against small arms
Marines DOUBLED their durability vs Small arms. Sometimes more thanks to small arms units getting a higher (per capita) price increase than those Marines did.
Dudeface wrote: B - the bolter sucks against all targets given in the example
As demonstrated above the bolter is doing MORE dmg per point against Orkz than ever before, especially when adding in the plethora of easy buffs they have access to. In contrast, the shoota is 2.5x worse vs Marines.
Dudeface wrote: C - predators stock are super cheap due to not being good enough
K....that is an entire other argument to have. I'll gladly do a comparison between a Predator and a Battlewagon if you want
Dudeface wrote: D - they correctly occupy the niche of the durable but offensively limited basic trooper in isolation
That is your interpretation, for everyone else not living in a bolter porno, Marines are currently better than they should be in a number of categories and are only doing better than average as opposed to dominating the meta because everyone builds into killing them more than any other faction in the entire game.
A bolter wounds *some* infantry on 3's, not all bolters are carried by loyalist Marines, if the bolter was OK, why do people take intercessors over tac marines?
Probably for the same reason I take more Kommandos than I do Boyz. There will always be a better option at a specific target or meta. Your argument is getting dangerously close to "Bolters should be good at everything" and even when that happens there will be units in the elite/heavy slot which are better and as such will be taken significantly more than your base tac Marine with his bolter.
So, to clarify, it's not that the intercessors possess better guns at a similar price point?
I'm confused if you're misusing the term elite to denote less common. Marines can be the most common army as long as their profile is elite enough that the weapons used against them are ineffective against the range of opponents outside the army. If an army geared to kill marines was incapable of handling units of gaunts on a basic level then that would fit. Instead everything is so killy and specialise it simply doesn't matter.
But yes the predator needs some love, that's the biggest takeaway.
Glad you brought this up dude. Marines can be the most common and still be elite for the very reason you mentioned. Want to know why that won't happen? Because after 8th Marine players lead the charge in complaining about how Horde armies were stupid, slow and made them have to bring anti-horde units which was stupid because they wanted to be spec'd into killing Knights not hordes. It wasn't fair for those poor Marine players to have to take more Bolters instead of Plasma/Melta/Lascannons. Put another way, Knights were ok to skew because reasons, but horde was just too much for those Marine players to handle and therefore they had to be nerfed. Which is why the GAME rules were changed to make hordes untenable, and with every new codex that used to have horde units coming out, you can see GW wants hordes to be nerfed. So with that in mind you are now complaining that your basic infantry weapons don't have a target worth shooting...well congrats, you guys did that to yourselves
I've personally noted on these boards that 8th hordes were slow, especially orks when combined with dakkadakkadakka, as someone who runs chaos marines, I've never said "nerf hordes, I only want to take Las cannons". I enjoy chewing through a blob with zerkers etc. It's satisfying.
It doesn't make small arms obsolete by any stretch, that train of thought is exactly what's caused the arms race with ap and damage we have now.
Yes, yes it does. lets go over this again for you. In 4th edition, to kill 1 Marine with Shootas it took 9 shoota boyz. 9 shoota boyz = 18 shots, = 6 hits = 3 wounds = 1 failed armor save.
9 shoota boyz at the time was 54pts, a Tac Marine was about 15pts. So 54pts to kill 15pts, that is a 0.27ppd trade off. To kill that same Marine with shootas today its now 18 shoota boyz to kill 1 Marine. 18 shoota boyz = 36 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds and 2 failed armor saves for 1 dead Marine (Math changes to 12 Shoota boyz at half range) that is 162pts of shoota boyz to kill 18pts of Marine that is 0.11ppd. So why the ever loving feth would i take small arms when my most common target is roughly 2.5x harder to kill points wise? while at the same time, to assuage Marines complaining that Orkz were too hard to kill en-mass the game rules and faction rules have changed to the point where my Boyz are actually worse point for point than ever before? So again, to summarize, my "Small arms" are in fact obsolete to the point where nobody takes them anymore.
Yes, ork small arms are obsolete to the point nobody takes them anymore. That has nothing to do with the profile of a bolter though. Again, divorce the bolter from the marine.
You will have 0 difficulty convincing me orks need changes, I've said I think it was in this thread that choppas should go through aoc for example. I'm not advocating Marines good, orks crap as the way forwards.
Dudeface wrote: A resilient army that's either heavily outnumbered and/or pillow fisted is a perfectly legitimate niche to have, but obviously people game around killing marines so they want bigger guns. We're now full circle to the point where the marines durability didn't matter, so naturally the want was to match the arms race the rest of the game has.
So again, Marines complained they didn't have tough troops because everyone was taking AP-3 so Marines got a 2nd wound, now your bolters do basically no dmg, especially when combined with AoC so now you want Bolters to be better at killing Marines and the other factions who got a significantly smaller durability boost to compensate for the original buff to Bolters (Doctrines and double tap range). I'll do this for fun. 4th edition, to kill 1 Ork boy it took 1.5 Marines at half range or 3 at Max range. 3 shots = 2 hits = 1 wound = 1 Dead Ork. 1.5 Marines was 22.5pts, 3 Marines = 45pts. Half range it was 0.266ppd, at max range it was 0.133ppd. In 9th edition, without doctrines, with just normal bolter it takes 2.7 Marines double tapping. 2.7 Marines = 5.4 shots = 3.6 hits = 1.2 wounds = 1 dead Ork boy. 2.7 Marines = 48.6pts, so its now 0.18ppd So to summarize, Current day Marines are now doing MORE dmg at 13-24' range and less dmg at half range. Add in tac doctrine and chapter buffs and its significantly more dmg, add in easy access to re-roll hits/wounds and its even better. So all told those Marine with their "crappy bolters' are doing significantly more dmg than before, especially at range.
I won't disagree, but they've fallen behind the curve of the game. Other small arms (bar orks) have received similar buffs in a lot of ways. Note this thread opened before AoC existed.
Dudeface wrote: What this shows is that a combination of:
A - the durability of a marine is good against small arms
Marines DOUBLED their durability vs Small arms. Sometimes more thanks to small arms units getting a higher (per capita) price increase than those Marines did.
Dudeface wrote: B - the bolter sucks against all targets given in the example
As demonstrated above the bolter is doing MORE dmg per point against Orkz than ever before, especially when adding in the plethora of easy buffs they have access to. In contrast, the shoota is 2.5x worse vs Marines.
Dudeface wrote: C - predators stock are super cheap due to not being good enough
K....that is an entire other argument to have. I'll gladly do a comparison between a Predator and a Battlewagon if you want
Dudeface wrote: D - they correctly occupy the niche of the durable but offensively limited basic trooper in isolation
That is your interpretation, for everyone else not living in a bolter porno, Marines are currently better than they should be in a number of categories and are only doing better than average as opposed to dominating the meta because everyone builds into killing them more than any other faction in the entire game.
Good job orks aren't the only other faction in the game, likewise fantastic that chaos marines sit below 50% wr competitively, marines sit at 50% after AoC on average and as do sisters. Take AoC into account and the rumoured csm rules and tbh it's likely OK on average. I will however challenge you to go find me someone who plays at a high level who would take a bolter dude over any other unit in their army other than a tax, because you won't find one. Same way I won't find any high level players running shoota boyz.
So, to clarify, it's not that the intercessors possess better guns at a similar price point?
It's almost like a T4 2W Marine with 3+ armor is almost the exact same across the board as a T4 2W Marine with 3+ armor and a different gun..... You want bolters to be as good as intercessors? Take intercessors, you want Tac Marines to have better bolters? Go talk to GW because they've already done that for you, its a new unit called....intercessors. I don't know what your complaint here is, GW has completely fethed up the SM Unit chart with carbon copies of units whose only difference is in weapons profile and a few other small things that in no way differentiate them to the extent that buffing one wouldn't either make the other useless or buff it to the same level as well.
I've personally noted on these boards that 8th hordes were slow, especially orks when combined with dakkadakkadakka, as someone who runs chaos marines, I've never said "nerf hordes, I only want to take Las cannons". I enjoy chewing through a blob with zerkers etc. It's satisfying.
Cool. You might not have, but several dozen others have. It was the same thing with the squigbuggy, it wasn't actually broken, the problem was the very vocal proponents of the game complained loudly enough that GW took notice. So bolters no longer have a purpose since light troops are no longer taken in large numbers. So now the argument becomes buff light infantry to bring them back into the game or change the bolter to do something it was never meant to do, kill Heavy infantry.
Yes, ork small arms are obsolete to the point nobody takes them anymore. That has nothing to do with the profile of a bolter though. Again, divorce the bolter from the marine.
You will have 0 difficulty convincing me orks need changes, I've said I think it was in this thread that choppas should go through aoc for example. I'm not advocating Marines good, orks crap as the way forwards.
Glad we can agree at least on Ork Small arms...but lets move that to basically EVERY OTHER faction How many Tau Firewarriors are top Tau lists taking? How many Eldar Guardians? How many SoB, How many Guardsmen etc etc. Its a weird list these days which takes lots of troops and you can expand that to Small arms units entirely. Even Nidz with their new S5 small arms weapons aren't taking them as much as they used to. Your point about divorcing the bolter from the Marine is irrelevant since again they are the biggest faction by a metric fethload that uses them, but even if you did, they are still about average compared to everyone else and realistically they still don't have a target since few are taking light infantry these days.
Dudeface wrote: A resilient army that's either heavily outnumbered and/or pillow fisted is a perfectly legitimate niche to have, but obviously people game around killing marines so they want bigger guns. We're now full circle to the point where the marines durability didn't matter, so naturally the want was to match the arms race the rest of the game has.
So again, Marines complained they didn't have tough troops because everyone was taking AP-3 so Marines got a 2nd wound, now your bolters do basically no dmg, especially when combined with AoC so now you want Bolters to be better at killing Marines and the other factions who got a significantly smaller durability boost to compensate for the original buff to Bolters (Doctrines and double tap range). I'll do this for fun. 4th edition, to kill 1 Ork boy it took 1.5 Marines at half range or 3 at Max range. 3 shots = 2 hits = 1 wound = 1 Dead Ork. 1.5 Marines was 22.5pts, 3 Marines = 45pts. Half range it was 0.266ppd, at max range it was 0.133ppd. In 9th edition, without doctrines, with just normal bolter it takes 2.7 Marines double tapping. 2.7 Marines = 5.4 shots = 3.6 hits = 1.2 wounds = 1 dead Ork boy. 2.7 Marines = 48.6pts, so its now 0.18ppd So to summarize, Current day Marines are now doing MORE dmg at 13-24' range and less dmg at half range. Add in tac doctrine and chapter buffs and its significantly more dmg, add in easy access to re-roll hits/wounds and its even better. So all told those Marine with their "crappy bolters' are doing significantly more dmg than before, especially at range.
Good job orks aren't the only other faction in the game, likewise fantastic that chaos marines sit below 50% wr competitively, marines sit at 50% after AoC on average and as do sisters. Take AoC into account and the rumoured csm rules and tbh it's likely OK on average. I will however challenge you to go find me someone who plays at a high level who would take a bolter dude over any other unit in their army other than a tax, because you won't find one. Same way I won't find any high level players running shoota boyz.
Cool, but again, WHICH ARMY is currently taking small arms troops as anything other than a tax? I can't really think of much, and if you can think of one its an outlier rather than the norm. You point this out as if its weird, but that is how Tacs have been for over a decade now. Even in there Hay day of 7th when SM were a top 3 army in the entire game, troops were just a tax to get free Razorbacks.
Dudeface wrote:Marines can be the most common army as long as their profile is elite enough that the weapons used against them are ineffective against the range of opponents outside the army. If an army geared to kill marines was incapable of handling units of gaunts on a basic level then that would fit.
Well, that is almost exactly what happened when Marines were at their apex of SM2.0: Armies tooled up to hard-counter Marines, and then we saw sporadic hordes win, because anti-Marine aren't great against tidal waves of Guardsmen.
You can make Marines multi-wound with absurd armor and high Toughness and it won't make them feel 'elite'; they'll still be the absolute basic, common, de facto standard army that every newbie is playing, the yardstick, the reference point, and the weapons taken in a TAC (read: anti-Marine) list will be whatever counters them. Yeah, you might make some minor concessions if a strictly anti-MEQ list can't handle Gaunts, but a rational player is not going to make his army equally effective against the threat that constitutes 80% of the playerbase and the one that constitutes 10% of the playerbase.
From a design standpoint, the ideal defensive profile for Marines is one that makes them firmly middle-of-the-road, where no single weapon archetype can hard-counter them. A design paradigm where the most-played army is an outlier in terms of statline is always going to produce weird results.
Or, I mean, they could push for 40K to not be all Marines all the time so then they actually are elite and weird and different, but that'd be a pretty big change and I don't see it happening anytime soon. If the 10th Ed starter doesn't have Marines in it I'll be shocked.
A major issue is that 40K doesn't have the depth as a game for anything to actually feel elite. The tactical and strategic choices are so limited that it doesn't matter what army you're playing, the choices you have to make are the same.
It doesn't matter how strong you make the bolter, or how tough you make the marines holding them, the feeling of playing them still won't match what they are "meant to be" in the lore because the game is too shallow to allow for it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: A major issue is that 40K doesn't have the depth as a game for anything to actually feel elite. The tactical and strategic choices are so limited that it doesn't matter what army you're playing, the choices you have to make are the same.
It doesn't matter how strong you make the bolter, or how tough you make the marines holding them, the feeling of playing them still won't match what they are "meant to be" in the lore because the game is too shallow to allow for it.
^^^^This. In the current edition, it seems that the only way anything can be represented as "elite" is with increased killing power/durability, which is a poor representation of something being elite, IMO. Older editions, with more robust core rules, did it better, also IMO. All of those Veteran Skills that my CSM could have always made them feel more "Skilled" and, well, "Veteran" than loyalists. But I don't think that same system could work in 9th, as there's just not enough in the core rules to work with in order to make most of them work anymore.
Space Marines used to feel MORE elite back in prior editions when they were less tough, because there were other rules which made them feel like pros. ATSKNF, Grenade rules, more freedom to choose what they fired at, Targeters on their equipment, auto-senses and protection from gas attacks, to name some examples.
I can literally think of no time in this game when Marines felt "elite". Even going back to 3rd edition they were still the most popular faction bar none. And going back to that era, Necron Warriors were as good if not better than Marines in general.
In my opinion this all boils down to too many players reading Black Library's Bolter Porn and those players who played "Space Marine" and all of whom are now under the impression that a single Marine should be better than any other faction.
SemperMortis wrote: I can literally think of no time in this game when Marines felt "elite". Even going back to 3rd edition they were still the most popular faction bar none. And going back to that era, Necron Warriors were as good if not better than Marines in general.
In my opinion this all boils down to too many players reading Black Library's Bolter Porn and those players who played "Space Marine" and all of whom are now under the impression that a single Marine should be better than any other faction.
When has anyone said space marines should be the best faction?
Space Marines by any standard are put forward as the generalist that's better than most races standard infantry at *something*. For orks it was shooting, for tau it's melee, for eldar it's durability, for necrons it used to be speed. They're not the best at any of them, just better at something than their opponents base mooks.
That's what is meant to make them elite, not relative popularity.
Yes, shockingly, a marine and tbh most units in the game are on paper better shooters than orks before you get all uppity.
I mean, I remember fighting Marines in 4th and they felt elite.
I remember my Imperial Guard getting into ranged firefights with Tactical Squads and doing okay point-for-point (still getting butchered but pointwise not outright losing). But when those Tactical Squads closed into melee (or hopped out of Rhinos closeby), it suddenly was a terrible slaughter and the Marines would come out on top.
At the time, I thought this felt pretty elite - the unit can do ranged combat pretty well, and close combat pretty well. The enemy had to know how to employ them, of course, which I think was the challenge.
I still remember the game where I learned that lesson. I was playing against a Salamanders player who had something like 40 Tactical Marines and a couple devastator squads. I was playing my Guard, and I was kinda dismissive of his whole army. The only vehicles were 3 Rhinos for 30 of the tactical marines.
So we initiated the game exchanging fire at long range, and I was doing alright. Holding the line and whatnot, taking casualties but also inflicting a few here and there.
But those 30 Marines in rhinos abruptly slammed into my flank. I figured they'd get out, rapid fire, and then slowly make their way forwards blazing away with their guns. After all, Marines are a shooting army, right?
Well, they did disembark and rapid fire, since in 4th you couldn't charge after the transport moved. They killed a bunch of Guardsmen - rapid firing bolters in 4th were no joke - but it wasn't anything unexpected.
Next turn, though, they charged me. I was like "pfft, tactical marines? They're a shooting unit." And then those 30 marines proceeded to defeat three platoons (almost 90) guardsmen and chewed up or destroyed two or three tanks over the course of the rest of the game, mostly via assault.
If we tally that up, it's like 30 Space Marines killed over 100 men and a squadron of tanks, exercising a useful mix of melee and ranged capabilities (meltaguns, flamers, and charges). THAT's when I was like "ok, I get the design of tactical marines now."
Those days were GLORIOUS for Marines. If you really knew how to use them they were fantastic. They did the same 5th onward, but to vehicles too, once they all came with Frag and Krak grenades. I was assaulting vehicles all the time and taking them out to the dismay of opponents.
SemperMortis wrote: I can literally think of no time in this game when Marines felt "elite". Even going back to 3rd edition they were still the most popular faction bar none. And going back to that era, Necron Warriors were as good if not better than Marines in general.
Necrons were better than Marines, BUT Marines could leverage CC and the Sweeping Advance rules to take them down effectively. It was a good fight. Both sides had to play to their strengths to win. If Marines were going to try and stand and shoot, the Crons would roll over them.
SemperMortis wrote: I can literally think of no time in this game when Marines felt "elite". Even going back to 3rd edition they were still the most popular faction bar none. And going back to that era, Necron Warriors were as good if not better than Marines in general.
Necrons were better than Marines, BUT Marines could leverage CC and the Sweeping Advance rules to take them down effectively. It was a good fight. Both sides had to play to their strengths to win. If Marines were going to try and stand and shoot, the Crons would roll over them.
As a Necron player in 4th I've never feared Tactical Marines in melee once. They were wet noodles and you know it.
SemperMortis wrote: I can literally think of no time in this game when Marines felt "elite". Even going back to 3rd edition they were still the most popular faction bar none. And going back to that era, Necron Warriors were as good if not better than Marines in general.
Necrons were better than Marines, BUT Marines could leverage CC and the Sweeping Advance rules to take them down effectively. It was a good fight. Both sides had to play to their strengths to win. If Marines were going to try and stand and shoot, the Crons would roll over them.
As a Necron player in 4th I've never feared Tactical Marines in melee once. They were wet noodles and you know it.
IIRC the way it usually worked is the powerfist killed 2-3 necrons, the rest of the marines with their 18 attacks would kill roughly 2, killing 4 or 5 total. The necrons would swing back with, say, 3-5 attacks (remember in 4e there was no pile in until after attacks were swung) killing at best 1 marine, and then the necrons would be testing 2d6 leadership, possibly outnumbered by 2-1 to make it a ld 9 check instead of 10.
I don't remember them being swept that often, but I do remember tactical marines eventually winning the combat. Most of the sweeping happened in like 5th edition when combat modifiers were based on casualties suffered rather than outnumbering.
When has anyone said space marines should be the best faction?
Space Marines by any standard are put forward as the generalist that's better than most races standard infantry at *something*. For orks it was shooting, for tau it's melee, for eldar it's durability, for necrons it used to be speed. They're not the best at any of them, just better at something than their opponents base mooks.
Key point you made is in bold/italics.
Lets take a look at bog standard Intercessors armed with their 30' S4 AP-1 rifles and lets compare them point for point vs both a shooting faction and vs a melee faction. I'll use Tau firewarriors as standard ranged specialist troops and Ork boyz as Melee specialists. No buffs allowed and we won't even be adding in doctrine bonuses. Just what is on the profile of the model.
So vs ranged opponent.
4 Intercessors get 8 shots, 5.33 hits, 3.5 wounds and 2.37 dead Tau. (most likely will not fail morale) That works out to 18.92pts of dmg or 0.23ppd.
10 Tau Firewarriors get 10 shots, 5 hits 3.3 wounds and 1.11dmg (can't fail morale) or 0.11ppd.
Winner = Intercessors. On average they will do more than TWICE as much dmg to Firewarriors than the firewarriors will do in return.
Vs CC Opponent.
20 Boyz = 180pts. In CC that is 60 attacks, 40 hits, 20 wounds and 6.66dmg or 3.33 dead Marines (Can only fail morale on a 6) , 66.6pts of dmg and 0.37ppd
9 Intercessors get 27 attacks, 18 hits, 6 wounds and 5 dead Orkz, or 45pts of dmg. Fails morale 2/3rds of the time for 1 more casualty and 2 more from attrition bringing the total to 8 dead Orkz or 72pts of dmg or 0.4ppd.
Winner = Intercessors, barely. On average the unit which charges will win this fight but considering intercessors are a RANGED combat unit this is pretty good.
So Marines have gone from "Generalists" to "better than your specialist troops".
When has anyone said space marines should be the best faction?
Space Marines by any standard are put forward as the generalist that's better than most races standard infantry at *something*. For orks it was shooting, for tau it's melee, for eldar it's durability, for necrons it used to be speed. They're not the best at any of them, just better at something than their opponents base mooks.
Key point you made is in bold/italics.
Lets take a look at bog standard Intercessors armed with their 30' S4 AP-1 rifles and lets compare them point for point vs both a shooting faction and vs a melee faction. I'll use Tau firewarriors as standard ranged specialist troops and Ork boyz as Melee specialists. No buffs allowed and we won't even be adding in doctrine bonuses. Just what is on the profile of the model.
So vs ranged opponent.
4 Intercessors get 8 shots, 5.33 hits, 3.5 wounds and 2.37 dead Tau. (most likely will not fail morale) That works out to 18.92pts of dmg or 0.23ppd.
10 Tau Firewarriors get 10 shots, 5 hits 3.3 wounds and 1.11dmg (can't fail morale) or 0.11ppd.
Winner = Intercessors. On average they will do more than TWICE as much dmg to Firewarriors than the firewarriors will do in return.
Vs CC Opponent.
20 Boyz = 180pts. In CC that is 60 attacks, 40 hits, 20 wounds and 6.66dmg or 3.33 dead Marines (Can only fail morale on a 6) , 66.6pts of dmg and 0.37ppd
9 Intercessors get 27 attacks, 18 hits, 6 wounds and 5 dead Orkz, or 45pts of dmg. Fails morale 2/3rds of the time for 1 more casualty and 2 more from attrition bringing the total to 8 dead Orkz or 72pts of dmg or 0.4ppd.
Winner = Intercessors, barely. On average the unit which charges will win this fight but considering intercessors are a RANGED combat unit this is pretty good.
So Marines have gone from "Generalists" to "better than your specialist troops".
I was going to point out a slew of issues with all that but genuinely cba any more. Like I said before they used AoC to close the gap and chaos marines might be OK once their book drops. It doesn’t mean the bolter is any good, but lets the rules salad compensate some of the time.
I think we need a clean slate on the edition and then more granular profiles personally with a greater emphasis on objectives and durability rather than killing power.
Edit: for what it's worth I think we actually want a similar end goal for the game, it's just how it gets there. I doff my cap and thank you for the debate.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Just posting in further agreement to the above.
Space Marines used to feel MORE elite back in prior editions when they were less tough, because there were other rules which made them feel like pros. ATSKNF, Grenade rules, more freedom to choose what they fired at, Targeters on their equipment, auto-senses and protection from gas attacks, to name some examples.
Marines have gotten hur-dur. It's a shame.
What is wrong with the ocean of rules attached to basic marines at the moment that makes them feel not elite? +1A on charge/being charged/heroic assault, rapid fire when standing still, army wide bonuses for different weapons depending on the phase, 2W, ignore the first point of AP, ignore morale modifiers, 3+ shooting, 3+ melee, 3+ armor, 6 different troop choices to choose between for optional additional rules, split large squads into smaller squads, and an entire supplement of strategems per subfaction. Marines are bloated with rules/options. Compare them to the troop choices of other factions and they are absolutely elite.
Edit: The issue is that bolters are good against troops and right now troops aren't worth taking. If you want to use bolters you have to make the things they target also worth using. Its no different from meltas being useless when every high wound model also had to have really good invulns to survive.
I'm on the fence now after the AoC change whether bolters should be improved or not.
On one hand, all marine durability has increased. On the other hand it kinda just led to players doubling down on the already good marine players. We don't see people competitively taking more tacticals. They're taking more of what they already had and just enjoying the buffs.
I do think all bolt weapons becoming minimum AP-1 could still be a good thing. Might make more players consider regular terminators with storm bolters more viable over something else. Hurricane bolter Centurions a viable option over something else.
I also do think if Tactical bolters become AP-1 then Intercessors with Stalkers and Bolt Rifles should become 19 points, and pay +1 point for AP-1 Assault Bolters.
SemperMortis wrote: I can literally think of no time in this game when Marines felt "elite". Even going back to 3rd edition they were still the most popular faction bar none. And going back to that era, Necron Warriors were as good if not better than Marines in general.
Necrons were better than Marines, BUT Marines could leverage CC and the Sweeping Advance rules to take them down effectively. It was a good fight. Both sides had to play to their strengths to win. If Marines were going to try and stand and shoot, the Crons would roll over them.
As a Necron player in 4th I've never feared Tactical Marines in melee once. They were wet noodles and you know it.
Maybe not actual tacs but in 3rd and 5th (never played 4th) I used to charge with my Blood Claws and Grey Hunters all the time.
As a Necron player in 4th I've never feared Tactical Marines in melee once. They were wet noodles and you know it.
They were great if you knew how to leverage their capabilities. There were four key plays that leveraged the basic Marine profile and capabilities.
1: Against lesser troops, Marines with their armor and toughness would just outlast opposing units in CC. Or if they did enough casualties, just Sweeping Advance them.
2: Using ATSKNF, you could pin units in CC that were much more dangerous than Tacs, effectively forcing them to lose a turn. You could use a combat squad to pin down a Wraithknight for a round while your army dealt with other threats.
3. Krak Grenades gave you excellent AT capability, especially in editions where you automatically struck the rear armor in CC. Tacs knocked out Vehicles (or suppressed them through Stunned/Shaken) very nicely.
4: You could embed a Character in the Tac squad. Using the lethality of the Character to rack up kills, but using the Tacs to draw hits away from your Character, and also use the bodies to push for outnumbering (4th ed), or casualty (5th+) Ld modifiers.
Against Necrons, one move was to maneuver the Tacs so that they would only partially hit a squad, even a big squad. Using the fixed 6" charge, you could get 10 Tacs to engage a 20-Cron unit in such a way that only part of that unit would be able to fight back, while the Tacs hit with their full attacks and charge bonus (and higher Initiative). Tacs could handily win the round, especially if they had a Powerfist, potentially by 2 or 3 casualties, dropping the Necron Ld to 7 (5th+ edition). "Wet noodle" tacs had a solid chance to Sweep a 360 point unit in a round of combat.
Prior to 5th with just the outnumbering bonus, Tacs could stil hold the Crons in place while you brought something more killy (or bigger, like a Dreadnought) to bear. If you think Tacs hit like a wet noodle in CC, well Necron Warriors were worse, only having better staying power through WBB. In 4th though, you used the bodies of Tacs to force Ld Modifiers to get the Sweep, which prevented WBB rolls. So you usually used multiple units in a focussed assault to bring both numbers and casualties to bear on a single unit for the Sweep.
Yeah, necron warriors were crap in melee in 4th ed, even against marines. Unlike marines, they had no force multipliers in the form of sergeant power sword / fist, and power weapons deny WBB.
What is wrong with the ocean of rules attached to basic marines at the moment that makes them feel not elite? . . Compare them to the troop choices of other factions and they are absolutely elite.
There are a number of problems, chief among them is that they make other troops from other factions feel like absolute garbage. Even troops that used to be roughly on-par with Space Marines (or better) in their particular specialties.
It also kills some tactical play for the Marine player. In prior editions the rule was "shoot the punchy and punch the shooty". These days Marines can often just outshoot the shooty and outpunch the punchy.
The thing with "Elite" is it's context. "Elite" compared to what? Well now it's elite compared to practically frikking everybody, which is lame. It's bolter porn, through and through.
Jarms48 wrote: I'm on the fence now after the AoC change whether bolters should be improved or not.
On one hand, all marine durability has increased. On the other hand it kinda just led to players doubling down on the already good marine players. We don't see people competitively taking more tacticals. They're taking more of what they already had and just enjoying the buffs.
I do think all bolt weapons becoming minimum AP-1 could still be a good thing. Might make more players consider regular terminators with storm bolters more viable over something else. Hurricane bolter Centurions a viable option over something else.
I also do think if Tactical bolters become AP-1 then Intercessors with Stalkers and Bolt Rifles should become 19 points, and pay +1 point for AP-1 Assault Bolters.
Yes, I also feel like my Orkz should go to -1 to wound and our choppas should become AP-2, for no increase in points of course. z
Being facetious aside, if this was Warhammer: Space Marine I would be all for it, but since this is Warhammer 40k and there are other factions in the game...no, feth no.
Since 4th Edition, hell, since 6th edition, Marines have DOUBLED their RoF at max range, they have gained +1 attack on charge turn, they have DOUBLED their wounds, and now they ignore -1AP. They have done all of that for a massive price hike of... 3pts. Compare that to any other factions basic troop choice and get back to me with the results.
But what is most telling about this whole damn scenario is your actual post itself.
I'm on the fence now after the AoC change whether bolters should be improved or not.
So it isn't a balance option against the rest of the game, its specifically because Space Marines are now harder to kill for Space Marines that Space Marines want Space Marines main weapon to be buffed to get -1AP so that on a Space Marine Tac turn it goes to AP-2 and the Space Marine can hurt other Space Marines more effectively than the Space Marine can currently hurt Space Marines.
There is nothing remotely balanced about upgrading Bolters to AP-1 without a price hike, and giving Intercessors a price cut because Tacs get better is just ridiculous. An intercessor currently out shoots a Tau firewarrior pt for pt and can beat Ork choppa boyz in CC if they get to swing first.
There are a number of problems, chief among them is that they make other troops from other factions feel like absolute garbage. Even troops that used to be roughly on-par with Space Marines (or better) in their particular specialties.
It also kills some tactical play for the Marine player. In prior editions the rule was "shoot the punchy and punch the shooty". These days Marines can often just outshoot the shooty and outpunch the punchy.
The thing with "Elite" is it's context. "Elite" compared to what? Well now it's elite compared to practically frikking everybody, which is lame. It's bolter porn, through and through.
exactly this. There is no scenario where on a point for point basis a Generalist Space Marine unit should beat Ranged specialist troops while also being able to win in CC if they swing first. That isn't balance its bad game design aimed at making the beginner Marine players feel good and for the average to bad players who play Space Marines to win a few more games against opponents who are better than they are but who aren't playing Marines.
If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
only if every gun in the game loses 1 AP. (That wouldve been a better change than AoC)
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
only if every gun in the game loses 1 AP. (That wouldve been a better change than AoC)
Hey, I'll happily give up the -1AP on my pulse rifles and SMS, if the SMS gets back the ignores cover rule, but I don't exactly see that happening...
as for the other AP mods, I PAY for those...
Hey, I'll happily give up the -1AP on my pulse rifles and SMS, if the SMS gets back the ignores cover rule, but I don't exactly see that happening...
as for the other AP mods, I PAY for those...
doesnt matter if you pay for it, the whole game has too much AP and AoC was a gakky patch rule that GW added in to counteract that.
Hey, I'll happily give up the -1AP on my pulse rifles and SMS, if the SMS gets back the ignores cover rule, but I don't exactly see that happening...
as for the other AP mods, I PAY for those...
doesnt matter if you pay for it, the whole game has too much AP and AoC was a gakky patch rule that GW added in to counteract that.
This. The reason AoC feels out of place is that everything is in an escalating arms race, so a durability buff almost feels unfair/out of place. They made the right choice by making things less killy, just applied it incorrectly.
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
only if every gun in the game loses 1 AP. (That wouldve been a better change than AoC)
Ew. Used to be a time those weapons outright ignored some armor saves. Leave it as is, kill AoC.
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
only if every gun in the game loses 1 AP. (That wouldve been a better change than AoC)
Ew. Used to be a time those weapons outright ignored some armor saves. Leave it as is, kill AoC.
Which takes us back to this topic - pulse rifles AP5, Shuriken catapults AP5, Bolter AP5. Which one isn't innately ap-1 in that list now?
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
only if every gun in the game loses 1 AP. (That wouldve been a better change than AoC)
Ew. Used to be a time those weapons outright ignored some armor saves. Leave it as is, kill AoC.
Which takes us back to this topic - pulse rifles AP5, Shuriken catapults AP5, Bolter AP5. Which one isn't innately ap-1 in that list now?
Neither of them should be -1AP.
When the AP system was overhauled the negative modifiers started at AP4.
The exception to this were necron weapons, which got a bonus to replace their signature gauss rule.
Then GW started throwing out AP bonuses to everything, making those weapons less unique, because as we all know, Necrons can't have nice things.
So really gauss flayers should be buffed.
Which takes us back to this topic - pulse rifles AP5, Shuriken catapults AP5, Bolter AP5. Which one isn't innately ap-1 in that list now?
The one that can shoot twice at 24" in the hands of Marines?
Correct, I like you posed that like it was an expanation though.
Just pointing out that there's more going on than just AP, lest some of us forget.
Pulse rifles are rapid fire 36" so a whole foot of extra range and 18" rapidfire. The shuriken Catapult is assault 2 18" so they both actually have something that balances against bolter discipline. Also sisters do not have bolter discipline.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Aren't Bolt Rifles -1 anyway? With longer range?
Aren't Primaris supposed to replace first born eventually as well?
Yes they have better guns and no intercessors do not replace tacticals.
^Units can charge after firing bolters now. Heck bolters can move and fire twice! It can even move and fire once at 24! Back in 3rd ed, a bolter could do none of those things. The Shuriken Catapult has deserved upgrades for years.
Look I'm fine with Bolters getting AP-1 while dropping the Doctrine bonus. But keep some perspective about the trends that have occured over time here. While were at it, kill Armor of Contempt. Marines will still be pulling ahead because they have two fething wounds now.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Units can charge after firing bolters now. Heck bolters can move and fire twice! It can even move and fire once at 24! Back in 3rd ed, a bolter could do none of those things. The Shuriken Catapult has deserved upgrades for years.
Look I'm fine with Bolters getting AP-1 while dropping the Doctrine bonus. But keep some perspective about the trends that have occured over time here. While were at it, kill Armor of Contempt. Marines will still be pulling ahead because they have two fething wounds now.
Give Gauss Flayers D2.
Well really, Necron Warriors should be T4 2w. Hell, I'd make basic demons 2w (mostly T3) to give defensive profiles more variety and to emphasize the idea that they're not supposed to be chaff before marines.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Units can charge after firing bolters now. Heck bolters can move and fire twice! It can even move and fire once at 24! Back in 3rd ed, a bolter could do none of those things. The Shuriken Catapult has deserved upgrades for years.
Look I'm fine with Bolters getting AP-1 while dropping the Doctrine bonus. But keep some perspective about the trends that have occured over time here. While were at it, kill Armor of Contempt. Marines will still be pulling ahead because they have two fething wounds now.
Give Gauss Flayers D2.
Well really, Necron Warriors should be T4 2w. Hell, I'd make basic demons 2w (mostly T3) to give defensive profiles more variety and to emphasize the idea that they're not supposed to be chaff before marines.
Nah, Necrons are fine. They're thin and wiry, so it stands to say the toughness from them IS the coming back from the dead.
If you wanted to boost their T value sure, but wounds at 1 for the non-elite works.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Units can charge after firing bolters now. Heck bolters can move and fire twice! It can even move and fire once at 24! Back in 3rd ed, a bolter could do none of those things. The Shuriken Catapult has deserved upgrades for years.
Look I'm fine with Bolters getting AP-1 while dropping the Doctrine bonus. But keep some perspective about the trends that have occured over time here. While were at it, kill Armor of Contempt. Marines will still be pulling ahead because they have two fething wounds now.
Give Gauss Flayers D2.
Well really, Necron Warriors should be T4 2w. Hell, I'd make basic demons 2w (mostly T3) to give defensive profiles more variety and to emphasize the idea that they're not supposed to be chaff before marines.
This, bring some more diversity so more decisions need to be made and more weapons have purpose.
Come in GW, explode those stats sat between 1-10 and shake it up.
To be honest on of the problems I have with the idea of Necron warriors as elite is the classic image of the endless Necron legion as shown in the cover of the 4th ed Necron codex.
GW has spent way to much time depicting Necron Warriors as fodder. Extremely dangerous and well armed, but as far as the Necron leaders are concerned, fodder nonetheless.
I mean the whole point of the Necrons is that they originally were a universe-ending threat, just like the Tyranids.
They were endless AND elite, able to match Space Marines and still have massive armies that competed with the Imperial Guard for force capability.
The theme was that (due to malfunctions and just a certain inherent slowness to the Necrons) the mortal races could delay the inevitable... but it would always come for them in the end. Just like the Tyranids.
On the tabletop, this was reflected with the Phase Out rule - the Necrons were more elite than Marines and still quite numerous, but killing 75% of them made the army teleport away to fight again another day.
And that original theme was pretty much undermined if not outright removed from the lore with the 5th ed Codex and the introduction of Necron characters and subfactions.
Lore wise, and thus rule wise, Necrons cannot really go back to that.
Tyran wrote: And that original theme was pretty much undermined if not outright removed from the lore with the 5th ed Codex and the introduction of Necron characters and subfactions.
Lore wise, and thus rule wise, Necrons cannot really go back to that.
Of course they could go back to that. It'd be easier than the introduction of Primaris.
No, as they have invested time and models setting up the different Necron subfactions and characters. Going back would mean burning down the effort put on Trazyn, Zahndrekh or the TDK trilogy.
For as disruptive as the Primaries were, their introduction didn't really require the removal or even rewriting of characters and/or factions.
Well really, Necron Warriors should be T4 2w. Hell, I'd make basic demons 2w (mostly T3) to give defensive profiles more variety and to emphasize the idea that they're not supposed to be chaff before marines.
Nah, Necrons are fine. They're thin and wiry, so it stands to say the toughness from them IS the coming back from the dead.
If you wanted to boost their T value sure, but wounds at 1 for the non-elite works.
And they don't have any meaty parts to break; "thin and wiry" sure but they're entirely made of metal.
Necron Warriors *should* be elite - they're the soldiers of a race that's supposed to be unimaginably technologically advanced, and that's how they used to be portrayed. Instead they get thrown under the bus for marine spank.
Necron Warriors *should* be elite - they're the soldiers of a race that's supposed to be unimaginably technologically advanced, and that's how they used to be portrayed. Instead they get thrown under the bus for marine spank.
they do have advanced tech... Marines don't get reanimation protocols.
Tyran wrote: And that original theme was pretty much undermined if not outright removed from the lore with the 5th ed Codex and the introduction of Necron characters and subfactions.
Lore wise, and thus rule wise, Necrons cannot really go back to that.
No, lore wise it could definitely be brought back to that if they just emphasized Necron technological superiority (which they should be doing anyway).
And rules wise there's no reason it couldn't be changed.
It sounds like you're saying you don't *want* it to be changed, not that it couldn't be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyran wrote: No, as they have invested time and models setting up the different Necron subfactions and characters. Going back would mean burning down the effort put on Trazyn, Zahndrekh or the TDK trilogy.
For as disruptive as the Primaries were, their introduction didn't really require the removal or even rewriting of characters and/or factions.
Yeah it did. It required retconning the idea that the Imperium is a decaying, degenerate, anti-science, anti-innovation society.
You don't need to "burn down" the effort put into Trazyn to emphasize that Necron warriors are technologically superior the Imperium and as basic troops are more or less a match to the Imperium's elites.
Necron Warriors *should* be elite - they're the soldiers of a race that's supposed to be unimaginably technologically advanced, and that's how they used to be portrayed. Instead they get thrown under the bus for marine spank.
they do have advanced tech... Marines don't get reanimation protocols.
Necron Warriors *should* be elite - they're the soldiers of a race that's supposed to be unimaginably technologically advanced, and that's how they used to be portrayed. Instead they get thrown under the bus for marine spank.
they do have advanced tech... Marines don't get reanimation protocols.
... Yet...
Honestly i'm getting tired of all the "woe is me, my faction isn't as elite as it should be in the fluff because other factions get the same keyword/effect"
Give all flavors of resilient factions a simple 5+++, Necrons, DG, Custodes, etc. can all be shown as more resilient with the same rule (and we'd get less complaint about RP for example).
Stop giving every factions their unique twist on resiliency thats really just a number being higher or lower than for other factions. Make the game simpler
Necron Warriors *should* be elite - they're the soldiers of a race that's supposed to be unimaginably technologically advanced, and that's how they used to be portrayed. Instead they get thrown under the bus for marine spank.
How dare you insult Space Marines, the rightful rulers of this game and the best army ever (end sarcasm)
Necrons beat the old ones...they enslaved literal gods, they took over the entirety of the galaxy and then...went to sleep. Krorkz were designed by the old ones to face off against the Necrons. Keep that in mind, at the time of the war in heaven the "fodder" were necron warriors vs Krorkz. The fluff I'm familiar with has the basic Krork boy standing 12 meters tall and wearing advanced Power armor that makes Space Marine armor look like imperial guard flask vests. Even if you cut that height in half so that only their leaders were 12 meters tall and the regular boyz were 6 meters tall...that would still make them ungodly powerful. In the canon lore of 40k a Demi-Krork, as in an Ork not yet reaching Krork levels was able to kill A primarch in single combat (Vulkan). Think about what I just said. A Demi-Krork killed Vulkan. And those Krorkz were considered the "Fodder" for the Old ones during the War in heaven, and furthermore the Necrons BEAT THEM!
So yeah, cool, Necron warriors are "Fodder" but fodder by that time frame makes them more advanced/elite/better than any Space Marine. How the hell else could anyone hope to beat an army of billions to trillions of Krorkz who make Ghazghkull look like a grot in comparison? Fluf wise Necrons absolutely get shafted by Space Marine Bolter porn and its ridiculous.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Give all flavors of resilient factions a simple 5+++, Necrons, DG, Custodes, etc. can all be shown as more resilient with the same rule (and we'd get less complaint about RP for example).
Stop giving every factions their unique twist on resiliency thats really just a number being higher or lower than for other factions. Make the game simpler
But then we'll start getting rules that ignore +++, like Railguns/etc ignoring Invulnerable saves, and Transhuman/etc ignoring weapon Strength, and whatever that was recently that ignores rerolls.
I'm still kinda shocked how a standard Astartes is more Contemptuous than a Custodian. I get it, Balance, and Custodes already have a 2+, to a marines 3+. But the thought behind it that somehow a Marine is better at stopping las guns than a Custodian?
It sounds like you're saying you don't *want* it to be changed, not that it couldn't be.
It would mean going back to the time in which Necrons were pretty much invincible for all purposes. The change to the 5th ed Necrons was also the change that allowed other factions to get wins against the Necrons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah it did. It required retconning the idea that the Imperium is a decaying, degenerate, anti-science, anti-innovation society.
Plenty of lore since then has shown the IoM as a decaying, degenerate, anti-science, anti-innovation society. My favorite being the Dark Angels constantly mind-wiping Primaris and using them as fodder (while selling out other Chapters to the Tau).
So not really.
You don't need to "burn down" the effort put into Trazyn to emphasize that Necron warriors are technologically superior the Imperium and as basic troops are more or less a match to the Imperium's elites.
You would need to reverse the tragedy themes present in the Necron books. A common thread is that because of the passage of time and the wounds caused by the War in Heaven and the rebellion against the C'tan, plus Necron infighting, they are but a shadow of their once might civilization.
This is at its most blatant in the TDK books, in which the remains of a doomed dynasty is forced to flee from an Imperial Crusade.
Moreover, I do believe we are forgetting about the actual professional soldiers of the Necrons, the Immortals. The Warriors are supposed to be nothing more than conscripted and mindwiped civilians after all while the Immortals actually were the main military force that fought the War in Heaven. And when it comes to Immortals I do believe they should at least be 2W.
As a new Necron player, I am willing to participate in a discussion about them. But this thread is about Bolt weapons and those that use them. And sure, some other faction comparison is more than applicable. However, I think there's a bit of subject drift occurring, common when threads such as this one gets long-in-the-tooth.
Take the above as kindly as possible, I just wanted to make a gentle reminder.
Tyran wrote: No, as they have invested time and models setting up the different Necron subfactions and characters. Going back would mean burning down the effort put on Trazyn, Zahndrekh or the TDK trilogy.
For as disruptive as the Primaries were, their introduction didn't really require the removal or even rewriting of characters and/or factions.
Response 1: You mean like the rewriting Oldcrons to Nucrons in the first place?
Response 2: Then just like Primaris, have both coexist in the universe.
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
Because AoC is (mostly) a marine thing, they should know how to bypass it .
Yes it's a band aid, but better than giving bolters, especially all bolters, flat AP-1. Which would be massive and unneeded.
To be fair, I'd keep AoC and get rid of doctrines, so every bolters would be AP0. Always. Including intercessors' ones, they simply might keep the better range. But to be honest I'd like intercessors and tacs to be the same thing, like there are two kits for ork boyz now and they're still one unit. Most of the primaris stuff, if not all, IMHO should just be an aesthetical thing, a way to have different looking models than classic firstborn ones, rather that unnecessary samey units.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Give all flavors of resilient factions a simple 5+++, Necrons, DG, Custodes, etc. can all be shown as more resilient with the same rule (and we'd get less complaint about RP for example).
Stop giving every factions their unique twist on resiliency thats really just a number being higher or lower than for other factions. Make the game simpler
But then we'll start getting rules that ignore +++, like Railguns/etc ignoring Invulnerable saves, and Transhuman/etc ignoring weapon Strength, and whatever that was recently that ignores rerolls.
as opposed to what we have right now? And my suggestion in no way requires these kind of weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm still kinda shocked how a standard Astartes is more Contemptuous than a Custodian. I get it, Balance, and Custodes already have a 2+, to a marines 3+. But the thought behind it that somehow a Marine is better at stopping las guns than a Custodian?
What? Lasguns are AP0, Custodes get a 2+ save against them, marines get a 3+ save.
Tyran wrote: No, as they have invested time and models setting up the different Necron subfactions and characters. Going back would mean burning down the effort put on Trazyn, Zahndrekh or the TDK trilogy.
For as disruptive as the Primaries were, their introduction didn't really require the removal or even rewriting of characters and/or factions.
Response 1: You mean like the rewriting Oldcrons to Nucrons in the first place?
Response 2: Then just like Primaris, have both coexist in the universe.
Both Necrons already coexist, the ones that still think they're slaves to the CTan simply aren't focused on because there isn't much TO focus on.
Blackie wrote: If bolters' problem is AoC, aka no AP bonus under the tactical doctrine against other power armoured armies, let SM weapons (or even just bolters) ignore AoC.
Actually I think doctrines in general could ignore AoC for an easier solution. Heavy weapons would ignore AoC first, then bolt weapons, and lastly melee ones.
well . Why doesn't EVERYONE just ignore AOC?
Because AoC is (mostly) a marine thing, they should know how to bypass it .
Yes it's a band aid, but better than giving bolters, especially all bolters, flat AP-1. Which would be massive and unneeded.
To be fair, I'd keep AoC and get rid of doctrines, so every bolters would be AP0. Always. Including intercessors' ones, they simply might keep the better range. But to be honest I'd like intercessors and tacs to be the same thing, like there are two kits for ork boyz now and they're still one unit. Most of the primaris stuff, if not all, IMHO should just be an aesthetical thing, a way to have different looking models than classic firstborn ones, rather that unnecessary samey units.
You'd rather keep a rule that makes no sense than just have AP-1 on Bolters?
VladimirHerzog wrote: Honestly i'm getting tired of all the "woe is me, my faction isn't as elite as it should be in the fluff because other factions get the same keyword/effect"
It's not the keyword/effect, it's the stats and points value.
It would mean going back to the time in which Necrons were pretty much invincible for all purposes. The change to the 5th ed Necrons was also the change that allowed other factions to get wins against the Necrons.
Incorrect. There were examples of the Imperium destroying Necron tombs and so on before that.
Plenty of lore since then has shown the IoM as a decaying, degenerate, anti-science, anti-innovation society. My favorite being the Dark Angels constantly mind-wiping Primaris and using them as fodder (while selling out other Chapters to the Tau).
Which doesn't jive with the superior, perfect, incorruptible Primaris as they were originally presented. They had to backtrack on that pretty hard.
You would need to reverse the tragedy themes present in the Necron books. A common thread is that because of the passage of time and the wounds caused by the War in Heaven and the rebellion against the C'tan, plus Necron infighting, they are but a shadow of their once might civilization.
This is at its most blatant in the TDK books, in which the remains of a doomed dynasty is forced to flee from an Imperial Crusade.
So? Just have them be outnumbered by a bajillion IG and Imperial Navy.
Tragedy is not about power levels, by the way. The tragedy is that the Necrons lost their souls, not the ability to destroy things.
Tyran wrote: Moreover, I do believe we are forgetting about the actual professional soldiers of the Necrons, the Immortals. The Warriors are supposed to be nothing more than conscripted and mindwiped civilians after all while the Immortals actually were the main military force that fought the War in Heaven. And when it comes to Immortals I do believe they should at least be 2W.
But you'll notice that Immortals aren't - tells you that GW's more interested in Necrons as a punching bag for marines than as a coherent element within the setting.
And no, the point is that even a basic Necron Warrior is incredibly dangerous and destructive; that's Necron tech for you.
Tyran wrote: No, as they have invested time and models setting up the different Necron subfactions and characters. Going back would mean burning down the effort put on Trazyn, Zahndrekh or the TDK trilogy.
For as disruptive as the Primaries were, their introduction didn't really require the removal or even rewriting of characters and/or factions.
Response 1: You mean like the rewriting Oldcrons to Nucrons in the first place?
Response 2: Then just like Primaris, have both coexist in the universe.
Both Necrons already coexist, the ones that still think they're slaves to the CTan simply aren't focused on because there isn't much TO focus on.
1: If they both coexist already, then your prior lore argument doesn't hold water.
2: If Oldcrons still exist, where are my better-than-tac-marines-Warriors? My 2xTacs Immortals? My Pariahs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: As a new Necron player, I am willing to participate in a discussion about them. But this thread is about Bolt weapons and those that use them. And sure, some other faction comparison is more than applicable. However, I think there's a bit of subject drift occurring, common when threads such as this one gets long-in-the-tooth.
Take the above as kindly as possible, I just wanted to make a gentle reminder.
Ok.
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
And people are saying that because the Shuriken Catapult gained 6" range and some AP, the primary Marine weapon totally needs a boost too.
I'm just wondering what Guardians gained to keep their relative power level to Marines. Tau Fire Warriors? Necron Warriors?
Insectum7 wrote: Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
And people are saying that because the Shuriken Catapult gained 6" range and some AP, the primary Marine weapon totally needs a boost too.
I'm just wondering what Guardians gained to keep their relative power level to Marines. Tau Fire Warriors? Necron Warriors?
Well, my uninformed opinion (I never played Tau), it looks like Fire Warriors gained since 3rd edition:
Photon grenades for free (used to be +1 point per model that removes the bonus attack for charging, now a stratagem that reduces charge roll and -1 to hit), -2 points per model (was 10/ea, and 20 for the sergeant), squad size 10 from 6-12, all can exchange for Pulse Carbine instead of half of them (Pulse Carbine goes from Assault 1 to Assault 2 and +6"), option for support weapon and drones. Advance and Shoot plus reroll 1s on some ranged attacks during rounds 1-3 (Mont'ka), Fall Back and Shoot(at -1) and additional hits on some ranged attacks on rounds 3-5 (Kauyon). Plus whatever their Sept does for them.
So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones, Advance/Fall Back and Shoot depending on the turn, reroll 1s to wound or extra hits depending on the turn, at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
Seems like some decent benefits and a points reduction, not an increase. Marines went up 20% in points (18 from 15) and Fire Warriors went down 37.5% in points (11 to 8). 90 points of 3rd edition Tactical Squad is 6 wounds, 10 wounds in 9th (66% increase). 80 points of 3rd edition Fire Warrior is 7.2 wounds, 10 wounds in 9th (39% increase). For not getting a second wound, they certainly feel like they came close.
You’re also factoring in subfaction and faction buffs.
Marines can also, for instance, fall back and shoot, if they’re Ultras. They also then count as not moving if they don’t advance or fall back for turn two and optionally turn three. They also have easy access to RR1s to-hit and to-wound, potentially RRAll, potentially +1 to-hit and wound…
Marines can also, for instance, fall back and shoot, if they’re Ultras. They also then count as not moving if they don’t advance or fall back for turn two and optionally turn three. They also have easy access to RR1s to-hit and to-wound, potentially RRAll, potentially +1 to-hit and wound…
I'd argue that I didn't include any Subfaction and you are.
So what is Bolter Disciple, Shock Assault and Doctrines if not a 'main faction' buff that they have gained since 3rd edition? I didn't include anything from subfaction (Sept), just main faction rules. Space Marines are a little different, since there the main faction (Space Marines), subfaction (Chapter) and sub-subfaction (Successors to Chapters).
Marines can also, for instance, fall back and shoot, if they’re Ultras. They also then count as not moving if they don’t advance or fall back for turn two and optionally turn three. They also have easy access to RR1s to-hit and to-wound, potentially RRAll, potentially +1 to-hit and wound…
I'd argue that I didn't include any Subfaction and you are.
So what is Bolter Disciple, Shock Assault and Doctrines if not a 'main faction' buff that they have gained since 3rd edition? I didn't include anything from subfaction (Sept), just main faction rules. Space Marines are a little different, since there the main faction (Space Marines), subfaction (Chapter) and sub-subfaction (Successors to Chapters).
Rules on the datasheet itself.
Marines just have more of them. Hell, a squad of White Scars Intercessors (not Assault ones-the shooty ones) can one-round an Imperial Knight in melee. It requires a shedload of buff stacking, but it’s absolutely obscene that that’s even possible with rolls short of deific, let alone on average rolls.
Kaied wrote: So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
Insectum7 wrote: Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
Kaied wrote: Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote: So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
Insectum7 wrote: Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
Yes, I also feel like my Orkz should go to -1 to wound and our choppas should become AP-2, for no increase in points of course. z
Being facetious aside, if this was Warhammer: Space Marine I would be all for it, but since this is Warhammer 40k and there are other factions in the game...no, feth no.
Since 4th Edition, hell, since 6th edition, Marines have DOUBLED their RoF at max range, they have gained +1 attack on charge turn, they have DOUBLED their wounds, and now they ignore -1AP. They have done all of that for a massive price hike of... 3pts. Compare that to any other factions basic troop choice and get back to me with the results.
Orks is a bad example. They basically need an entire new codex at this point. They’re overpriced, lack synergy between units, don’t have many good builds, and their faction abilities are pretty meh.
So it isn't a balance option against the rest of the game, its specifically because Space Marines are now harder to kill for Space Marines that Space Marines want Space Marines main weapon to be buffed to get -1AP so that on a Space Marine Tac turn it goes to AP-2 and the Space Marine can hurt other Space Marines more effectively than the Space Marine can currently hurt Space Marines.
There is nothing remotely balanced about upgrading Bolters to AP-1 without a price hike, and giving Intercessors a price cut because Tacs get better is just ridiculous. An intercessor currently out shoots a Tau firewarrior pt for pt and can beat Ork choppa boyz in CC if they get to swing first.
AP-1 bolters doesn’t just buff marines. It buffs Sisters, Guard, and Custodes who all have bolter options. Regular Battle Sisters are trash, but with AP-1 they’d be better into non-AoC armies and it also indirectly buffs Divine Guidance which could be used to push bolters to AP-2 against AoC armies.
I also didn’t say there wouldn’t be any point nerfs. GK would obviously require some being an entire army of stormbolters. Intercessors don’t get cheaper because Tacticals get better, they get cheaper because no-one takes bolt rifles or stalker bolters. Everyone takes assault bolters.
It also kills some tactical play for the Marine player. In prior editions the rule was "shoot the punchy and punch the shooty". These days Marines can often just outshoot the shooty and outpunch the punchy.
Bolter armed marines aren’t doing the killing. They’re just sitting on objectives or tax to take the actual viable units.
Kaied wrote: Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote: So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
Insectum7 wrote: Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
Yeah, that is what I said. Both weapons got +6", one of the (free) options got twice as many shots, the other (free) option got -1 AP. Actually, they didn't get them for free, but at a discount since their points went down.
JNAProductions wrote: As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
Arguably, comparing 3rd edition charge to Shock Assault isn't much of an upgrade... everyone got +1A on charge in 3rd. So Marines basically gained +1A when charged, or Heroic Intervention with Shock Assault. I'd argue that Armor of Contempt is a Faction buff that for some reason is being shown as a Datasheet buff on various online resources. The dataslate does not add the keyword to any datasheet directly at all, it piggy-backs off the Adeptus Astartes Faction keyword. So... like definition of a Faction Buff. So if AoC is being taken into account, the Mont'ka/etc also should be.
What happens if we give the old Tactical Marine the same treatment as Fire Warriors? So we end up with 1W Marines without Shock Assault/Combat Doctrines/Bolter Disciple, but 12 ppm and either an 24" Astartes Shotgun or a 30" -1AP Bolt Rifle? Cheaper than Scouts(which are 14 ppm) but with better weapons and 3+ save, but not Elites and don't have SA/CD/BD. Is that fair? I think they would end up being auto-takes because they are cheap.
So quick reminder to people: this thread was incepted before AoC was even a thing, nobody expected them to actualy buff durability over offensive power. So the argument isn't moot but it also wasn't made with AoC in the picture, it's definitely a different situation now.
Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles. You wouldn't argue multimeltas get extra AP and fire twice in guard because eradicators carry them.
Jarms48 wrote: Orks is a bad example. They basically need an entire new codex at this point. They’re overpriced, lack synergy between units, don’t have many good builds, and their faction abilities are pretty meh.
That sounds like you're saying that's a bad example because it proves his point too well.
Hecaton wrote: That sounds like you're saying that's a bad example because it proves his point too well.
It doesn't. Orks as a codex is arguably the worst 9th edition by far. Terrible internal balance, no synergy, actually lost playstyles, didn't even get custom cultures. The latter is a joke for what's the most diverse faction around.
Kaied wrote: Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote: So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
Insectum7 wrote: Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
Yeah, that is what I said. Both weapons got +6", one of the (free) options got twice as many shots, the other (free) option got -1 AP. Actually, they didn't get them for free, but at a discount since their points went down.
JNAProductions wrote: As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
Arguably, comparing 3rd edition charge to Shock Assault isn't much of an upgrade... everyone got +1A on charge in 3rd. So Marines basically gained +1A when charged, or Heroic Intervention with Shock Assault. I'd argue that Armor of Contempt is a Faction buff that for some reason is being shown as a Datasheet buff on various online resources. The dataslate does not add the keyword to any datasheet directly at all, it piggy-backs off the Adeptus Astartes Faction keyword. So... like definition of a Faction Buff. So if AoC is being taken into account, the Mont'ka/etc also should be.
What happens if we give the old Tactical Marine the same treatment as Fire Warriors? So we end up with 1W Marines without Shock Assault/Combat Doctrines/Bolter Disciple, but 12 ppm and either an 24" Astartes Shotgun or a 30" -1AP Bolt Rifle? Cheaper than Scouts(which are 14 ppm) but with better weapons and 3+ save, but not Elites and don't have SA/CD/BD. Is that fair? I think they would end up being auto-takes because they are cheap.
Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles.
It's one of the main reasons why AP-1 on bolters would be a catastrophe.
Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles.
It's one of the main reasons why AP-1 on bolters would be a catastrophe.
In what way would it be a catastrophe? Chaos marines are hardly known for their shredding bolter fire, loyalist Marines tend to use intercessors for bolter duty because their guns are better, guard have them dotted through the army but not in any volume to ruin anyone's day and sisters might finally have a use for the bolter wielders rather than just being ablative wounds for special weapons.
In what way would it be a catastrophe? Chaos marines are hardly known for their shredding bolter fire, loyalist Marines tend to use intercessors for bolter duty because their guns are better, guard have them dotted through the army but not in any volume to ruin anyone's day and sisters might finally have a use for the bolter wielders rather than just being ablative wounds for special weapons.
CSM suffer from having an old codex, not AP0 on their most basic weapons. I'm pretty sure they won't need AP-1 bolters as soon as they get their codex. 2nd wound that is currently missing is much more important.
It would be a catastrophe since lethality is already too high in 40k, it should be reduced not increased and bolters are the basic weapon for several units from multiple armies. SM and sisters don't need to be more lethal, CSM need a whole new codex.
In what way would it be a catastrophe? Chaos marines are hardly known for their shredding bolter fire, loyalist Marines tend to use intercessors for bolter duty because their guns are better, guard have them dotted through the army but not in any volume to ruin anyone's day and sisters might finally have a use for the bolter wielders rather than just being ablative wounds for special weapons.
CSM suffer from having an old codex, not AP0 on their most basic weapons. I'm pretty sure they won't need AP-1 bolters as soon as they get their codex. 2nd wound that is currently missing is much more important.
It would be a catastrophe since lethality is already too high in 40k, it should be reduced not increased and bolters are the basic weapon for several units from multiple armies. SM and sisters don't need to be more lethal, CSM need a whole new codex.
Ok, to highlight this from the leaked rules for chaos, they're getting doctrines with exploding 6's. Currently the game is proliferated with high AP damage 2+ weapons, those same weapons kill 1 marine per shot now at 12 points, they'll kill 1 marine per shot at 18 points (assumingly) in the new codex. That aside, their firepower from bolters will go down overall, there's 50% less bolters being fired and 13% more hits going through or if you like 180 points now is 20 hits, in the new book for 2 turns it'll be 15 hits. So no, a new chaos marine book isn't going to fix the bolter for chaos, what it will do is make the marine holding it potentially more durable an/or better in melee.
It doesn't matter if it "doesn't fix the bolters". If CSM end up a solid army with the new codex then job's done. If they are going to be more durable and/or better in melee, then better bolters on top of that might be problematic.
My point is that armies like SM or sisters doesn't need to be more killy. So they don't need better bolters. If bolters get buffed then something else need to be toned down. Same for chaos.
And I'm bringing bolter guys anytime with my full firstborn SW. Even a 300 points vehicle which fires boltgun rounds actually.
Kaied wrote: For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
I care little about points.
Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?
Blackie wrote: It doesn't matter if it "doesn't fix the bolters". If CSM end up a solid army with the new codex then job's done. If they are going to be more durable and/or better in melee, then better bolters on top of that might be problematic.
My point is that armies like SM or sisters doesn't need to be more killy. So they don't need better bolters. If bolters get buffed then something else need to be toned down. Same for chaos.
And I'm bringing bolter guys anytime with my full firstborn SW. Even a 300 points vehicle which fires boltgun rounds actually.
Good for you that you're happy they're not great and don't care that they suck, whilst you use an army that does actually get ap-1 bolters for 2 turns?
Blackie wrote: It doesn't matter if it "doesn't fix the bolters". If CSM end up a solid army with the new codex then job's done. If they are going to be more durable and/or better in melee, then better bolters on top of that might be problematic.
My point is that armies like SM or sisters doesn't need to be more killy. So they don't need better bolters. If bolters get buffed then something else need to be toned down. Same for chaos.
And I'm bringing bolter guys anytime with my full firstborn SW. Even a 300 points vehicle which fires boltgun rounds actually.
Good for you that you're happy they're not great and don't care that they suck, whilst you use an army that does actually get ap-1 bolters for 2 turns?
Yes, AP-1 for two turns is very powerful and it helps balancing an army that doesn't have lots of power creep since it's entirely based on 3rd-7th edition models. Sisters for example are much better as a faction, even without the bolter doctrine.
But I'd use those models anyway though, I could go more elite but I like playing 40ish power armour marines so they'd stay even if they had flat AP0 bolters and bolt pistols.
Kaied wrote: For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
I care little about points.
Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?
That’s your problem. Even in 3rd edition 10 marines were at least 50% more points than fire warriors. It’s not a fair comparison. From memory a fire warrior was 9 or 10 points, marines were 15 or 16. So weighed fairly it should be at least 15 fire warriors against 10 marines.
- Tau: That’s 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 1.66 dead marines.
- Marines: If the marines go first then that’s 6.66 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 dead fire warriors.
What’s not being considered here is that Tau had longer range and the boards were both bigger and had less terrain. So with good positioning or use of movement those Tau could get 2 rounds of shooting before the Marines even get a chance to retaliate.
Kaied wrote: For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.
I care little about points.
Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?
That’s your problem. Even in 3rd edition 10 marines were at least 50% more points than fire warriors. It’s not a fair comparison. From memory a fire warrior was 9 or 10 points, marines were 15 or 16. So weighed fairly it should be at least 15 fire warriors against 10 marines.
- Tau: That’s 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 1.66 dead marines.
- Marines: If the marines go first then that’s 6.66 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 dead fire warriors.
What’s not being considered here is that Tau had longer range and the boards were both bigger and had less terrain. So with good positioning or use of movement those Tau could get 2 rounds of shooting before the Marines even get a chance to retaliate.
Which is why marine armies had to be flexible and careful rather than just Orking across the board firing from the hip.
Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"
Special Operations units in the modern day are elite because of their expertise and capability, not because that can tank more shots than King Kong and throw semi-trucks around like Godzilla.
Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"
But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.
And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.
And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.
I agree. It feels weird to say this about one of my favorite settings in fiction, but the lore might need to be changed, though that word may bring in too much of an extreme feeling. My friends have started to like WHFB more for its consistency, and how armies are portrayed being similar to how they play, at least in 6th edition.
Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles.
It's one of the main reasons why AP-1 on bolters would be a catastrophe.
> Giant exploding projectile gets ignored by a thick leather jacket on basic line infantry
> Being so angry your armor somehow ignores Plasma more
Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"
But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.
And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.
I'm sorry but what about elite means they can't be approachable and simple to play? An elite faction is simply one that's often outnumbered and relies on greater abilities of the army or models to compensate for the lack of numbers. That's very literally what marines are in the fluff, they're generalists who are fairly decent at everything and fairly survivable hence (should) pay a premium for the pleasure of it but are always outnumbered an running as spearheads of attacks.
Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"
But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.
And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.
I'm sorry but what about elite means they can't be approachable and simple to play? An elite faction is simply one that's often outnumbered and relies on greater abilities of the army or models to compensate for the lack of numbers. That's very literally what marines are in the fluff, they're generalists who are fairly decent at everything and fairly survivable hence (should) pay a premium for the pleasure of it but are always outnumbered an running as spearheads of attacks.
it's nothing to do with how hard the army is to play, that would be how elite the player is.
So how does 40k abstract "quality, rank, or skill"?
Keep in mind that equipment (saves, offensive output) isn't on that list. Neither is endurance (toughness) or strength (strength).
About all you have are Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill...
What I am saying is that 40k doesn't have the required abstractions to make your troopers feel "elite/highly skilled/high quality/high ranked" on the tabletop.
Why does a Boltgun being AP-1 help Marines be more high skilled, highly ranked, or high quality?
The point is that in a wargame that running a vastly smaller force, even if the few guys you have are vastly more powerful, should put you at a disadvantage that you have to overcome with tactical ability and general skill. To make marines more interesting and actually play more like marines they should be less beginner friendly. Beginner friendly imo would be guard, you have a lot of guys, the roles are clear cut, and there’s nothing crazy going on.
Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"
But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.
And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.
I'm sorry but what about elite means they can't be approachable and simple to play? An elite faction is simply one that's often outnumbered and relies on greater abilities of the army or models to compensate for the lack of numbers. That's very literally what marines are in the fluff, they're generalists who are fairly decent at everything and fairly survivable hence (should) pay a premium for the pleasure of it but are always outnumbered an running as spearheads of attacks.
it's nothing to do with how hard the army is to play, that would be how elite the player is.
So how does 40k abstract "quality, rank, or skill"?
Keep in mind that equipment (saves, offensive output) isn't on that list. Neither is endurance (toughness) or strength (strength).
About all you have are Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill...
What I am saying is that 40k doesn't have the required abstractions to make your troopers feel "elite/highly skilled/high quality/high ranked" on the tabletop.
Why does a Boltgun being AP-1 help Marines be more high skilled, highly ranked, or high quality?
The gear, the stats are "qualities" and you will note quality is a metric it identifies. If you're a human at s3 and that s4 dude has tank rounds bouncing off him, can punch through walls, crush skulls in his hands, hit targets you can't even see with a mini rocket launcher. You're gonna think "wow that guys way better than us". They're high skilled, armed with quality tools and guard officers usually defer rank to them.
So what do you define as an "elite" 40k force then?
)
