I often here how bolters are terrible weapons and I'm just curious as to whether this is a recent thing, or whether they've always been bad?
Also, I'm thinking of the Bolter in terms of its current statline (S4 AP5 Rapid Fire) - just in case it had a different profile in the very early editions.
The imagination that the enemies die in droves when shot by bolter wielding Marines is wrong.
I think bolters should have rending without any cost increase.
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
It was the marines that were garbage at 30 points a piece. The bolter was sweet. Just ask my 2nd edition Orks. It was an awesome weapon in 2nd edition. It's always sucked since 3rd onwards, but it's even worse in the escalating environment (super-heavies, vehicle spam, T8 monstrous creatures, etc).
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
It was the marines that were garbage at 30 points a piece. The bolter was sweet. Just ask my 2nd edition Orks. It was an awesome weapon in 2nd edition. It's always sucked since 3rd onwards, but it's even worse in the escalating environment (super-heavies, vehicle spam, T8 monstrous creatures, etc).
S4 -1 armor save with two shots if the model stood still was terrible in a game with S4 -2 armor save sustained fire dice catapults, and S4 -2 armor save TWO sustained fire dice sonic blasters. Besides, Orks just deployed a dozen pulsa rokkits and won. As I said, marines were unplayable.
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
There's nothing really wrong with the bolter itself, but it has no place as a mainstay weapon on a 14+ point model.
For example, Inquisition acolytes with bolters for 5 points are pretty solid.
They have had that exact weapon profile since I started playing over 10 years ago. It was pretty bad then in 4th-ish. It's probably even worse now. It would be a great weapon for guardsman but on a marine it's an absolute waste of 14 points.
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
There's nothing really wrong with the bolter itself, but it has no place as a mainstay weapon on a 14+ point model.
For example, Inquisition acolytes with bolters for 5 points are pretty solid.
I get your point, but it IS the mainstay weapon of a 14+ point model, and so it is terrible in that context.
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
It was the marines that were garbage at 30 points a piece. The bolter was sweet. Just ask my 2nd edition Orks. It was an awesome weapon in 2nd edition. It's always sucked since 3rd onwards, but it's even worse in the escalating environment (super-heavies, vehicle spam, T8 monstrous creatures, etc).
S4 -1 armor save with two shots if the model stood still was terrible in a game with S4 -2 armor save sustained fire dice catapults, and S4 -2 armor save TWO sustained fire dice sonic blasters. Besides, Orks just deployed a dozen pulsa rokkits and won. As I said, marines were unplayable.
We didn't really stand for cheese like Pulsa-rokkit spam. In a standard game, Orks with Bolters rocked. Just run for a turn or two and let go with close range shots (that +1 to hit was crucial). Dropped marines like flies.
Xenomancers wrote: They have had that exact weapon profile since I started playing over 10 years ago. It was pretty bad then in 4th-ish. It's probably even worse now. It would be a great weapon for guardsman but on a marine it's an absolute waste of 14 points.
Bolters are only effective in rapid fire range.
Often Marines get into 12" range only once per game.
After the game you can ask how many times they fired their bolters.
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
It was the marines that were garbage at 30 points a piece. The bolter was sweet. Just ask my 2nd edition Orks. It was an awesome weapon in 2nd edition. It's always sucked since 3rd onwards, but it's even worse in the escalating environment (super-heavies, vehicle spam, T8 monstrous creatures, etc).
S4 -1 armor save with two shots if the model stood still was terrible in a game with S4 -2 armor save sustained fire dice catapults, and S4 -2 armor save TWO sustained fire dice sonic blasters. Besides, Orks just deployed a dozen pulsa rokkits and won. As I said, marines were unplayable.
We didn't really stand for cheese like Pulsa-rokkit spam. In a standard game, Orks with Bolters rocked. Just run for a turn or two and let go with close range shots (that +1 to hit was crucial). Dropped marines like flies.
That wasn't cheese. 200+ hormagaunts, 40+ blight grenades, a Chaos terminator army that didn't deploy til the last turn of the game, and warp spiders. THOSE were cheese. Pulsa rokkits were just what Orks did in 2nd.
Martel732 wrote: Bolters have always been pretty much garbage because of how much the marine wielding them cost. They were particularly underpowered in 2nd ed.
It was the marines that were garbage at 30 points a piece. The bolter was sweet. Just ask my 2nd edition Orks. It was an awesome weapon in 2nd edition. It's always sucked since 3rd onwards, but it's even worse in the escalating environment (super-heavies, vehicle spam, T8 monstrous creatures, etc).
S4 -1 armor save with two shots if the model stood still was terrible in a game with S4 -2 armor save sustained fire dice catapults, and S4 -2 armor save TWO sustained fire dice sonic blasters. Besides, Orks just deployed a dozen pulsa rokkits and won. As I said, marines were unplayable.
We didn't really stand for cheese like Pulsa-rokkit spam. In a standard game, Orks with Bolters rocked. Just run for a turn or two and let go with close range shots (that +1 to hit was crucial). Dropped marines like flies.
That wasn't cheese. 200+ hormagaunts, 40+ blight grenades, a Chaos terminator army that didn't deploy til the last turn of the game, and warp spiders. THOSE were cheese. Pulsa rokkits were just what Orks did in 2nd.
Which goes to show how different metas shape your experience. We never saw more than one Pulsa. Orks were about tons of bolters and cheap fast vehicles when I played.
Also, we were pretty narrative and casual, so that makes a huge difference. No one would have pulled any of the crap you listed at my old store, just wasn't our style. At any rate, it was still the marine that sucked and not the bolter. S4 on a basic weapon was gold back then. Sure Catapults were better, but the bolter was still a solid basic weapon.
I used to flood the board with Blind Grenades. People were so ticked because they could not target me until I came out of the glow. I made special templates for them and the table soon looked cluttered. It was more of a mind tactic. But by the time I moved up, unhindered, the bolter shots were effective.
Martel732 wrote: Never won a game in 2nd with the old Angels of Death codex. Not a single game.
Dark Angels or Blood Angels?
Dark Angels were especially laughable with expensive, mandatory upgrades that didn't change their performance much.
BA. But I think loyalist marines combined record at my store from 1994-1996 or whenever was under 5-over 50. 2nd ed was a marine massacre.
They sucked. No doubt. Even with 2nd editions higher point base, 30 pts was too much for a guy who essentially only had 4+ save (except against termagaunts, I guess). They died in droves and could only put out any decent firepower if they stood stock still (a death sentence with 2nd edition's LOS rules).
Space Wolves weren't bad with all the BS and WS 5 crap (that really made a difference back then), but anything Codex was garbage.
I honestly think GW overcompensated in 3rd, but now at 7th we are back to the fundamental meq being a joke. It's all about biker troops, grav stars, and smashbane.
I seriously think bolters just need to have rending at no extra cost. I think it's kind of dumb when my infantry can't even put up a fight in most shooting matches.
Martel732 wrote: I honestly think GW overcompensated in 3rd, but now at 7th we are back to the fundamental meq being a joke. It's all about biker troops, grav stars, and smashbane.
I agree. But I don't think the bolter is the problem. The problem is the negation of 3+ saves having any value these days. It's bad enough that with the cover/AP system marines can't be both obscured and armored, but with the mass of AP3 and better weaponry available... ugh. 3+ worked in 3rd edition because ap3 and better were far more rare.
Unfortunately, the boat has sailed. They'd have to completely reboot the game (ala 3rd edition) to fix it at this point.
Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
eskimo wrote: Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
I wish this were true. But it's not. After suffering through 2nd ed, I recognize useless weaponry when I see it.
eskimo wrote: Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
I wish this were true. But it's not. After suffering through 2nd ed, I recognize useless weaponry when I see it.
It is rather useless.
Marines are often used to babysit one or two special weapons.
Martel732 wrote: It's a combination. 3+ doesn't hold up like it used to AND tac marines have no offensive punch. They're bad on both ends.
mmtbh the only thing stopping me from fielding scouts instead at every turn is the fact that they cant take as many weapon options and they cant take a dedicated transport in my army
HillyKarma wrote: I seriously think bolters just need to have rending at no extra cost. I think it's kind of dumb when my infantry can't even put up a fight in most shooting matches.
You can't add rending to all bolters though, it would make some units completely out of hand. 5 point rending acolytes?
As a rule for all MARINES, sure, but you can't put it on the bolter. Call it "precision marksmanship" or something.
eskimo wrote: Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
I wish this were true. But it's not. After suffering through 2nd ed, I recognize useless weaponry when I see it.
It is rather useless.
Marines are often used to babysit one or two special weapons.
Pretty much.
Granted Grey Hunters back in the day could get podded near an objective in cover and yell "come at me bro", but in general this is true.
Cover should go back to BS modifiers to make that 3+ save worth it
Bolters need special rules, or marines do. Or both
HillyKarma wrote: I seriously think bolters just need to have rending at no extra cost. I think it's kind of dumb when my infantry can't even put up a fight in most shooting matches.
You can't add rending to all bolters though, it would make some units completely out of hand. 5 point rending acolytes?
As a rule for all MARINES, sure, but you can't put it on the bolter. Call it "precision marksmanship" or something.
i think the solution is not to add rending but to give marines rellentless or change bolters to salvo 2/3 storm bolters to 3/5. HB also 3/5 but 5 str ap4.
eskimo wrote: Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
BA has a lot more going for it than an army using the Vanilla SM codex
Xenomancers wrote: They have had that exact weapon profile since I started playing over 10 years ago. It was pretty bad then in 4th-ish. It's probably even worse now. It would be a great weapon for guardsman but on a marine it's an absolute waste of 14 points.
Agreed. Bolters aren't that bad. They're actually pretty great at shredding 5+ or lower armored troops (Most Guardsmen, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and Chaos Cultists). As a Daemon/Guard player, I can attest to that. The problem is that basic marines are a bit too expensive for the current metagame. That means less bodies on the tabletop, making them pack less punch and be easier to kill. They should either drop them a couple points, or give power armour a 5+ invul save.
eskimo wrote: Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
BA has a lot more going for it than an army using the Vanilla SM codex
eskimo wrote: Bolters are far from rubbish, people just be greedy for easy wins. I'm so happy my new army i've chosen to build (BA) is getting listed as "mid lvl army at best".
BA has a lot more going for it than an army using the Vanilla SM codex
BA wants to charge- would have to fire bolt pistols to do that. That means less shots. ehhh. Rapid fire is a pretty dumb mechanic unless you are a trench fighter like a guardsman or a fire warrior.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
Xenomancers wrote: They have had that exact weapon profile since I started playing over 10 years ago. It was pretty bad then in 4th-ish. It's probably even worse now. It would be a great weapon for guardsman but on a marine it's an absolute waste of 14 points.
Agreed. Bolters aren't that bad. They're actually pretty great at shredding 5+ or lower armored troops (Most Guardsmen, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and Chaos Cultists). As a Daemon/Guard player, I can attest to that. The problem is that basic marines are a bit too expensive for the current metagame. That means less bodies on the tabletop, making them pack less punch and be easier to kill. They should either drop them a couple points, or give power armour a 5+ invul save.
Power armor 5+ invo term armor 4+ invo. Now we are talking real stuff.
It won't help in this meta, really. I actually lose the majority of my marines to S6/7 shooting that doesn't penetrate the armor. They just get hit with mass wounds and I can't save them all. The prevalence of AP 2 just makes more expensive marine variants like sanguinary guard useless.
Xenomancers wrote: They have had that exact weapon profile since I started playing over 10 years ago. It was pretty bad then in 4th-ish. It's probably even worse now. It would be a great weapon for guardsman but on a marine it's an absolute waste of 14 points.
Agreed. Bolters aren't that bad. They're actually pretty great at shredding 5+ or lower armored troops (Most Guardsmen, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and Chaos Cultists). As a Daemon/Guard player, I can attest to that. The problem is that basic marines are a bit too expensive for the current metagame. That means less bodies on the tabletop, making them pack less punch and be easier to kill. They should either drop them a couple points, or give power armour a 5+ invul save.
I actually like there being less marine bodies since they are supposed to be rarer.
Its never going to happen as this system gives way more benifits to large amounts of shots over elite killing shots.
And GW would never want you to not buy MOAR things.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
From a fluff standpoint it should be something like salvo 2/3 rending. This would make storm bolters something like salvo 4/6 rending. Would this break the game? No. People would just start using tac marines and terms.
Maybe not even then. Too many power units can't be effectively engaged by S4 shooting. That's how bad it is. You could double the output of bolt weapons and they still wouldn't cut it.
Martel732 wrote: It won't help in this meta, really. I actually lose the majority of my marines to S6/7 shooting that doesn't penetrate the armor. They just get hit with mass wounds and I can't save them all. The prevalence of AP 2 just makes more expensive marine variants like sanguinary guard useless.
Well wave serpents are another problem bro lol.
If wave serpents are in the discussion I see no reason why my power armor shouldn't ricochet saved wounds back at the attacker.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
From a fluff standpoint it should be something like salvo 2/3 rending. This would make storm bolters something like salvo 4/6 rending. Would this break the game? No. People would just start using tac marines and terms.
If i was making a fluff based tactical game..
It would probably something like that. somewhere where marines are supercharged but cost an obscene amount but have multiple wounds and stuff since they should easily shrug off getting hit by a few flashlights or bullets.
Martel732 wrote: It won't help in this meta, really. I actually lose the majority of my marines to S6/7 shooting that doesn't penetrate the armor. They just get hit with mass wounds and I can't save them all. The prevalence of AP 2 just makes more expensive marine variants like sanguinary guard useless.
Well wave serpents are another problem bro lol.
It's not just wave serpents. IG's go to weapons are S6/7 as well. So are Warp Spiders. So are Tau weapons. The list goes on and on. They just pepper with ROF S 6/7 and it does't matter if your marines have cover or not. It's brilliant list building, but very frustrating.
Martel732 wrote: It won't help in this meta, really. I actually lose the majority of my marines to S6/7 shooting that doesn't penetrate the armor. They just get hit with mass wounds and I can't save them all. The prevalence of AP 2 just makes more expensive marine variants like sanguinary guard useless.
Well wave serpents are another problem bro lol.
It's not just wave serpents. IG's go to weapons are S6/7 as well. So are Warp Spiders. So are Tau weapons. The list goes on and on. They just pepper with ROF S 6/7 and it does't matter if your marines have cover or not. It's brilliant list building, but very frustrating.
When I played eldar in 5th war walkers with 2 scatter lazers were my most reliable killers. I know what you mean.
Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.
bibotot wrote: Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.
Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.
Carnage43 wrote:There's nothing really wrong with the bolter itself, but it has no place as a mainstay weapon on a 14+ point model.
For example, Inquisition acolytes with bolters for 5 points are pretty solid.
... on a model that has -1 or -2 to all their stats, and don't have ATSKNF, among other things.
wuestenfux wrote:The imagination that the enemies die in droves when shot by bolter wielding Marines is wrong.
I'd say it's mostly this. Incorrect expectations. People read a HH novel and get it in their heads that a bolter can mow down twenty six guard regiments in 2.6 seconds and then wonder why they're not as good on the table. Or, of course, they're also not that bad when you don't assume that every unit always has a 4+ cover save in every circumstance, and that forcing models to hide in cover isn't sometimes a very bad thing.
As far as over time, bolters have hurt from two main things. The first is that 40k is now about how many monstrous creatures you can cram on a table, and bolters aren't very good against them. Back when basically only tyranid had MCs, that just left light and heavy infantry, and light and heavy vehicles, bolters being able to hurt 3 out of 4 reasonably reliably. They also didn't used to have to deal with fliers. Not really a problems with bolters, but of GW listening to their players when it came to what to add and what balance was.
The other thing as well has been points creep. Even back when they started "sucking" in 3rd ed, it was common to see armies that had much more like 20 dudes and a tank than a 6-foot line of wave serpents. If you adjust for points inflation, then all small arms become a lot better, and bolters even moreso than other small arms. Go play a 500 or 750 point game where your opponent's army isn't 3 riptides and then say that bolters are bad.
As far as specific rules, I can only think of a couple that hurt bolters specifically, such as the change in 5th edition of units giving units behind them a cover save instead of forcing a Ld9 check (which was a tiny bit better), and a vastly more generous vehicle damage table (which, though, have now been replaced with hull points, which arguably make them better).
I think people need to play as Guardsmen for a whoile and get used to S3 AP - guns for a bit. Because Bolt Guns are a huge improvement.
BUT
On the flip side of the coin, you got necron bolt guns that strip hull points crazy easy, then you have tau buffed bolt guns with super range and then you have assault bolt guns with rending (but less range).
I do feel like they are missing something, but at the same time they dont feel like they are that bad.
I think the real problem lies with Marines not the gun. But the point is, it aint so bad.
bibotot wrote: Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.
Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.
$40 gives you not only 10 models, but tons of other kids to decorate them, along with tons of alternative weapons to arm them such as Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Melta, etc. The Tactical Marines and Sternguards are two most modified units in the game.
You won't, but lots of others will. It's the law of Supply and Demand. Anyway, if Tactical Marines cost 15 points per model with the REAL Bolter, the cost might have been $50.
bibotot wrote: Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.
Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.
Scouts are the better value.
They can have bolters, too. Don't bother.
Swastakowey wrote: I think people need to play as Guardsmen for a whoile and get used to S3 AP - guns for a bit. Because Bolt Guns are a huge improvement.
BUT
On the flip side of the coin, you got necron bolt guns that strip hull points crazy easy, then you have tau buffed bolt guns with super range and then you have assault bolt guns with rending (but less range).
I do feel like they are missing something, but at the same time they dont feel like they are that bad.
I think the real problem lies with Marines not the gun. But the point is, it aint so bad.
You point out how other standard weapons are superior to boltguns. Pretty sure it's part of the problem considering they are getting them for less points.
bibotot wrote: Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.
Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.
Scouts are the better value.
They can have bolters, too. Don't bother.
Swastakowey wrote: I think people need to play as Guardsmen for a whoile and get used to S3 AP - guns for a bit. Because Bolt Guns are a huge improvement.
BUT
On the flip side of the coin, you got necron bolt guns that strip hull points crazy easy, then you have tau buffed bolt guns with super range and then you have assault bolt guns with rending (but less range).
I do feel like they are missing something, but at the same time they dont feel like they are that bad.
I think the real problem lies with Marines not the gun. But the point is, it aint so bad.
You point out how other standard weapons are superior to boltguns. Pretty sure it's part of the problem considering they are getting them for less points.
bibotot wrote: Fluff-wise, bolters are Assault 4, S5 AP4. But on the tabletop, GW wants to sell more Marine models, so they came up with this pathetic representation and lower the cost of each Marine.
Well I don't understand their formula...40$ tac squads. No chance I buy that box.
Scouts are the better value.
They can have bolters, too. Don't bother.
Now I get it! they are trying to sell scouts!!!
Many of the units I pointed out do not have access to integrated support weapons weapon. Necrons have none. Eldar have none (bar their pistol range Guardian Squads) and Tau have none. Slightly better average guns, but they have to rely on other squads for many jobs that space marines have a chance at doing. Its not the bolt gun. Its the marine that may have an issue.
My SoB are pretty pleased with their bolters. And I usually get to fire them at least twice per squad - once as they jump out of a Rhino at point-blank range and then Overwatch if the enemy didn't quite die.
They could be better, sure... but I have so little else to spend points on that the bulk of any army will be basic bolter sisters. I can just imagine the cries if I brought 31 RENDING sisters to a 750 pts game (minus the Hflamers and meltas, ofc - so 25).
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.
Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.
The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.
They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.
Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.
The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.
They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.
Whats worse is Space Marine Bolters combine the firing of a bullet with the firing of a rocket. The gun from the 60s is 100% rocket. Its not really possible to combine both.
So a bolt gun just uses magic to make sure that it can fire the rocket bullets with no downsides. Which is fine because its future space magic haha. But yea in real life its gotta be bullet or rocket, not rocket bullets.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.
Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.
The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.
They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.
Thats not what a bolt-gun is. A bolt-gun is essentially a high caliber explosive round. I imagine it would function every bit like a semi auto grenade launcher capable of knocking through a small wall before launching molten metal into it's target. So in relation to human weapons today. It would be like a 60 mm HE motar round. Typically these things destroy everything in the room.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.
Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.
The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.
They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.
Thats not what a bolt-gun is. A bolt-gun is essentially a high caliber explosive round. I imagine it would function every bit like a semi auto grenade launcher capable of knocking through a small wall before launching molten metal into it's target. So in relation to human weapons today. It would be like a 60 mm HE motar round. Typically these things destroy everything in the room.
Carnage43 wrote:There's nothing really wrong with the bolter itself, but it has no place as a mainstay weapon on a 14+ point model.
For example, Inquisition acolytes with bolters for 5 points are pretty solid.
... on a model that has -1 or -2 to all their stats, and don't have ATSKNF, among other things.
But they throw 3x the shots downfield, while having 3 times as many wounds. Against something like a plasma gun, or really any gun that is Str 6 and above and doesn't ignore cover, you are a good deal better off with the acolytes.
This isn't a problem with bolters, but more of a problem with how expensive marines are relative with other troops, and how saves work. Cover doesn't benefit marines as often as it does other troops. A 5+ means marines are twice as good if saves are allowed, but cost 3x as much (and with a higher toughness, the acolytes are still tougher point for point), and put down a significantly smaller amount of fire power. A 4+, or a save ignoring gun, just makes marines seem absurdly overpriced.
If cover worked as a BS modifier, marines would suddenly become a lot better compared to other troops.
wuestenfux wrote:The imagination that the enemies die in droves when shot by bolter wielding Marines is wrong.
I'd say it's mostly this. Incorrect expectations. People read a HH novel and get it in their heads that a bolter can mow down twenty six guard regiments in 2.6 seconds and then wonder why they're not as good on the table. Or, of course, they're also not that bad when you don't assume that every unit always has a 4+ cover save in every circumstance, and that forcing models to hide in cover isn't sometimes a very bad thing.
Maybe your meta is different, but it seems that for most people, cover is pretty common. One of the best things about 40k compared to other table tops is the beautiful landscapes you are encouraged to make, and they offer a large amount of cover to troops. Often, it doesn't take a 4+ to make marines seem very overpriced. The above example uses a 5+ and marines still come out looking worse. Many units already have a 4+ save, and AP 4 is not as commonly seen as AP 2/3, meaning marines are often saving at a similar, or slightly worse save, then much cheaper troops.
In addition to this, bolters have been seen as bad before the HH novels came into being. Las/plas has been a staple for a very long time for a reason.
As far as over time, bolters have hurt from two main things. The first is that 40k is now about how many monstrous creatures you can cram on a table, and bolters aren't very good against them. Back when basically only tyranid had MCs, that just left light and heavy infantry, and light and heavy vehicles, bolters being able to hurt 3 out of 4 reasonably reliably. They also didn't used to have to deal with fliers. Not really a problems with bolters, but of GW listening to their players when it came to what to add and what balance was.
GW has flat out stated they don't listen to us, the players. They do no market research and do not use external playtesters anymore, and haven't in quite some time.
I wouldn't say bolters can reliably harm heavy infantry, or light vehicles. A terminator takes, what, nearly 18 bolter shots to die? Hardly effective. Light vehicles, unless AV 10, can not be harmed at all by bolters. It takes 9 shots to strip a hull point off, which is a lot better, but it does mean a full squad rapid firing will do 2 hp to an extremely light tank. With special weapons, this gets better, but is still not what I would call reliable. It's why marines have been special weapon delivery systems for ever.
I agree that more MC's and heavy tanks have seen the bolter fade, but these are not the only reasons. It was not a top tier weapon that faded, but rather a mid tier weapon that is scraping the bottom.
The other thing as well has been points creep. Even back when they started "sucking" in 3rd ed, it was common to see armies that had much more like 20 dudes and a tank than a 6-foot line of wave serpents. If you adjust for points inflation, then all small arms become a lot better, and bolters even moreso than other small arms. Go play a 500 or 750 point game where your opponent's army isn't 3 riptides and then say that bolters are bad.
? How does less points help? Granted there might be less tanks, which bolters are terrible against, but it doesn't make them better then a pulse rifle, Tesla/gauss, catapaults, and pretty much every other troop weapon that isn't attached to a horde model (who, even then, point for point, comes out tied or better with bolters)
As far as specific rules, I can only think of a couple that hurt bolters specifically, such as the change in 5th edition of units giving units behind them a cover save instead of forcing a Ld9 check (which was a tiny bit better), and a vastly more generous vehicle damage table (which, though, have now been replaced with hull points, which arguably make them better).
Hull points helped them, but bolters still aren't acceptable against tanks of any kind really. The special weapon is likely to do as much damage as the entire squad, and costs a lot less.
More cover being available hurts bolters, since they are ap 5. Pulse rifles and especially eldar weapons are hurt by this, but they are not said to be weak, but that is a fair point. It's just not the main reason.
If cover gave a BS modifier, marines would be better, and bolters would become stronger, but they would still be at the bottom of the better troops weapons
I always kind of figured they were kind of what would happen if you took a RPG and used that as the bullet inside a normal shell casing (i.e. completely stupid and totally impractical, but this is 40k we are talking about)
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.
Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.
The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.
They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.
Whats worse is Space Marine Bolters combine the firing of a bullet with the firing of a rocket. The gun from the 60s is 100% rocket. Its not really possible to combine both.
So a bolt gun just uses magic to make sure that it can fire the rocket bullets with no downsides. Which is fine because its future space magic haha. But yea in real life its gotta be bullet or rocket, not rocket bullets.
Ehm, it's not "magic", it's a two-stage munition, which is more than possible to create (and has been). You have standard-bullet-bang in the chamber, achieving lethal velocity at the muzzle, and then the rocket part kicks in to provide greater range and impact of the armor-piercing warhead with its explosive payload.
You cannot fire a bullet then have it become rocket propelled. You can have multiple stage rockets and so on. But you cant have a bullet turn into a rocket part way through.
A bullet cannot be a rocket yet.
You can have gyrojet ammunition, but it is not fired like a conventional bullet. Its a small rocket.
Leave bolters alone. Marines just need to be more durable. 2 wounds perhaps? Most ap2/3 stuff would still instant death them. they would just become more durable to small arms fire.
I think the guy who said you need to compare bolt guns to lasguns is correct. you also need to consider what bolt guns where primarily designed to fight. They're basicly explosive rounds that penatrate into someone and explode. the damage they do to lightly armored targets is proably absolutly disgusting. the bolt gun was designed pretty much to fight lightly armored fleshies and absolutly destroy them. The bolt gun should be most effective vs Guardsmen, Nid Gaunts, ork Boyz and similer lightly armored targets.
I'd say the AP on em is pretty solid. it'll push through falk cloth and the like but a solid carapice stands a chance of stopping the bolt. the damage of em well.. I suppose that's queastionable. if S4 is eneugh.
That said, does the boltgun reflect how it's depicted? a little but it certinly could be stronger.
I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.
I think if I was gonna give bolt guns a special rule it'd be Shred. or if I wanted to be a bit rediculas I'd make then "fleshbane" I mean... if you get shot and the bullet goes up like a grenade inside you, you're gonna have a bad time. but I freely admit that'd be Over the top movie marines level power
BrianDavion wrote: I think the guy who said you need to compare bolt guns to lasguns is correct. you also need to consider what bolt guns where primarily designed to fight. They're basicly explosive rounds that penatrate into someone and explode. the damage they do to lightly armored targets is proably absolutly disgusting. the bolt gun was designed pretty much to fight lightly armored fleshies and absolutly destroy them. The bolt gun should be most effective vs Guardsmen, Nid Gaunts, ork Boyz and similer lightly armored targets.
I'd say the AP on em is pretty solid. it'll push through falk cloth and the like but a solid carapice stands a chance of stopping the bolt. the damage of em well.. I suppose that's queastionable. if S4 is eneugh.
That said, does the boltgun reflect how it's depicted? a little but it certinly could be stronger.
I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.
I think if I was gonna give bolt guns a special rule it'd be Shred. or if I wanted to be a bit rediculas I'd make then "fleshbane" I mean... if you get shot and the bullet goes up like a grenade inside you, you're gonna have a bad time. but I freely admit that'd be Over the top movie marines level power
I mostly agree. but for whatever reason one of the BL book has bolters just wreck rowboat girlyman in near full armor. no helm or right hand gauntlet. and these things just destroyed the armor. enough to penetrate his shoulder and midsection.
BrianDavion wrote: I think the guy who said you need to compare bolt guns to lasguns is correct. you also need to consider what bolt guns where primarily designed to fight. They're basicly explosive rounds that penatrate into someone and explode. the damage they do to lightly armored targets is proably absolutly disgusting. the bolt gun was designed pretty much to fight lightly armored fleshies and absolutly destroy them. The bolt gun should be most effective vs Guardsmen, Nid Gaunts, ork Boyz and similer lightly armored targets.
I'd say the AP on em is pretty solid. it'll push through falk cloth and the like but a solid carapice stands a chance of stopping the bolt. the damage of em well.. I suppose that's queastionable. if S4 is eneugh.
That said, does the boltgun reflect how it's depicted? a little but it certinly could be stronger.
I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.
I think if I was gonna give bolt guns a special rule it'd be Shred. or if I wanted to be a bit rediculas I'd make then "fleshbane" I mean... if you get shot and the bullet goes up like a grenade inside you, you're gonna have a bad time. but I freely admit that'd be Over the top movie marines level power
I mostly agree. but for whatever reason one of the BL book has bolters just wreck rowboat girlyman in near full armor. no helm or right hand gauntlet. and these things just destroyed the armor. enough to penetrate his shoulder and midsection.
Well realism and logic beside, bolt round are described as having armor-piercing tips. According to the background, they do it all!
BrianDavion wrote:I disagree STRONGLY with those whom say it should get rending. Rending basicly is an "auto armor penatration" this is something that IMHO doesn't fit bolg guns.
Yeah, what they need to do is remove rending from shuriken weapons, not add it to bolters.
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
From a fluff standpoint it should be something like salvo 2/3 rending. This would make storm bolters something like salvo 4/6 rending. Would this break the game? No. People would just start using tac marines and terms.
THIS!
Like seriously, it makes it seem pretty preposterous that these are the guys are the military equivalent of a bulldozer for mankind when I can hardly put up a fight with an unaccompanied tac squad
Food for thought:
According to the Forgeworld Horus Heresy books, the Legions initially started out with Volkite weaponry, but the growth of the Legions as they left Terra quickly outgrew the ability make the Volkite weapons, and they were replaced with the boltgun. So, this means marines originally had a 15" S5 AP5 Assault 2 weapon with the Deflagrate rule (unsaved wounds cause additional hits, but those extra hits cannot cause additional hits).
Might be kind of fun to try that in a game, replacing all bolters with Volkite Chargers. Potential for more damage, but at a significantly decreased range.
Anyway, as others have said, the problem has never really been with the boltgun itself, but with the marine carrying it. At least in 2nd Edition marines had the ability to fire twice if they didn't move. Now, a marine firing a bolter is exactly as effective as anyone else fiting a bolter.
One must avoid confusing BL with what 40k really is. The utility of bolters and power armor and SM capabilities varies by author and whoever is the protagonist.
In some books, bolters don't kill anything, in others, they're all S8 AP2. There's a huge amount of variation.
Lets look at how they actually perform in game. A single round of shooting from a squad of tac marines will wipe out 90% of a squad of guardsmen in the open, and cripple a unit in cover. Against what we today would think of as common infantry, these weapons are extremely powerful, whereas a volley of fire from assault rifle type weapons might kill one Space Marine. The math works out pretty well there.
Just like real life however, it's not the small arms that do the bulk of the killing, its the crew served weapons and artillery. For what they are, Bolters are pretty solid.
Vaktathi wrote: In some books, bolters don't kill anything, in others, they're all S8 AP2. There's a huge amount of variation.
You're exaggerating. It's not as inconsistent as you think it is, and more importantly it's almost never inconsistent in favour of the rules.
Vaktathi wrote: A single round of shooting from a squad of tac marines will wipe out 90% of a squad of guardsmen in the open
Look at it this way instead:
On average, a Space Marine hosing a Guardsman standing in the open with Boltgun rapid fire at close range will, on average, fail to kill him.
I can't make it work in my head. In fact, it's incredibly grating. Humans are not able to take that kind of punishment. If a heavily trained super-soldier shoots you at close range while you are in the open, firing numerous massive-caliber explosive rounds, you won't 'on average' continue to fight. You will, quite simply, be dead. A red mess on the floor. Any other outcome would be so rare as to be worthy of legend.
Many of you here pride yourselves with military experience. Pray tell, what happens when a soldier is caught in the open, at close range, of a rapid fire explosive weapon in the hands of an elite enemy?
It's like that, turned up to 11.
Just an example of the many incredibly jarring lore-mechanics discrepancies, which is a factor heavily contributing to the fact that my 40k hobby rarely includes gaming. This is not the fault of granularity vs simplicity. This is GW wanting you to buy large amounts of Space Marines, even in relatively minor battles.
Swastakowey wrote: Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.
Assuming rapid fire:
2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = average 0,8712 kills.
So no, on average he will kill less than one guardsman with close range rapid fire outside of cover. Which, for reasons previously stated, is really, really immersion-breaking.
Also a hit could mean the round hit next to the Guardsmen.
How hard is it to miss at close range, with rapid fire, when you are a really stable firing platform and have super-elite training?
Very hard.
May have been effected by the etc just not becoming a casualty.
I dunno, getting hit by a shot like that is in the 'blown to bits' category, which seems to fit the definition of a casualty.
Plus who would play if Space Marines killed everything. I have to have enough guardsmen as it is!
It's too late to fix entirely by now, but I would have preferred if Marine models were significantly fewer, stronger and true scale to begin with.
So no, you would not need more models. The enemy player would simply need fewer.
You did hit the nail on the head though, in that it's partially for gameplay reasons. The ruleset sacrifices a lot of diversity in favour of trying to achieve balance and ensuring you must buy a lot of models (or, in very rare cases, several very large models) no matter which faction you play.
The result is a game where, in perspective, pretty much all troops are guardsmen. Or guardsmen that are a bit tougher and less armoured and swap ranged for melee ability. Or guardsmen that are a little more expensive and a little tougher overall, and so on.
Vaktathi wrote: In some books, bolters don't kill anything, in others, they're all S8 AP2. There's a huge amount of variation.
You're exaggerating. It's not as inconsistent as you think it is,
Hrm, it's pretty wildly inconsistent.
and more importantly it's almost never inconsistent in favour of the rules.
Is that a fault of the rules, or BL simply running off the deep end?
Look at it this way instead:
On average, a Space Marine hosing a Guardsman standing in the open with Boltgun rapid fire at close range will, on average, fail to kill him.
Um, negative...on average the Space Marine should kill him.
The marine should average 0.88 wounds, on average, that means the vast majority of the time, that's a dead guardsmen. A full squad should average 8.88 wounds, that's pretty high odds, that's about 80% the effectiveness of a plasma gun against infantry in the open. A single guardsmen in the open against a single marine in rapid fire range should only survive ~1 of 9 turns.
Swastakowey wrote: Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.
Assuming rapid fire:
2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = average 0,8712 kills.
So no, on average he will kill less than one guardsman with close range rapid fire outside of cover.
Which, for reasons previously stated, is really, really immersion-breaking.
Your interpretation here is incorrect (so is the math slightly, 2*(2/3)*(2/3) should equal 0.888...)
that 0.8 number means that, much more likely than not, that guardsmen will die. We're talking *averages* not *chance*. 0.88 average kills is a very high kill rate, a number below 1 does not mean there will be no kill on average, that would be below 0.5
Ashiraya wrote: To put it in other terms then: He will on average kill less than one guardsman.
My point stands.
Your interpretation is off-kilter, but whatever. Most of the time, that guardsmen will die, a far better than even proposition.
To get kill rates to what you would deem acceptable, if kiling guardsmen is the measure we're using, they'd need to be S5, which mathematically would make them the same thing as S6 AP3 against marines.
If your immersion is broken because you can't just literally sweep guardsmen off a table with a broom, I'm sorry, this game has never, ever been that way. If you must see marines the way some of the more absurd BL writers portray them, well, you're never going to get a workable game out of that, and a lot of those tales are difficult to take in the first place. The game stats work just fine, a squad of marines will utterly ruin a squad of guardsmen with very little return threat. That works for me. We don't need recreations of Brothers of the Snake where a single tactical squad takes on 47,000pts worth of Dark Eldar and comes out just fine. Take Black Library as overblown propaganda stuff and that's a lot more accurate.
Besides, if we're going to get into actual fluff and what should be reflected on a table, there should be several hundred million guardsmen and hundreds of thousands of Leman Russ tanks for every Space Marine in existence. When you get your S5 Assault 6 Rending bolters, I'll take take entireTank Divisions as individual troops choices
Heh, play the FFG40k RPG and you'll see what true-to-fluff bolters are like. On average I think it takes around 6 hits to kill a marine in power armour. Eldar turn to a fine red mist if they take a hit or two. Honestly, if I could figure out how, I'd just use Black Crusade/Only War/Dark Heresy instead of the current tabletop rules.
Vaktathi wrote: To get kill rates to what you would deem acceptable, if kiling guardsmen is the measure we're using, they'd need to be S5, which mathematically would make them the same thing as S6 AP3 against marines.
S5 sounds nice. Fire Warriors have proven that S5 infantry weapons need not be broken. Other adjustments would also be needed of course but it's a step in the right decision.
If your immersion is broken because you can't just literally sweep guardsmen off a table with a broom, I'm sorry, this game has never, ever been that way.
Tradition is not a justification.
If you must see marines the way some of the more absurd BL writers portray them, well, you're never going to get a workable game out of that, and a lot of those tales are difficult to take in the first place. The game stats work just fine, a squad of marines will utterly ruin a squad of guardsmen with very little return threat. That works for me. We don't need recreations of Brothers of the Snake where a single tactical squad takes on 47,000pts worth of Dark Eldar and comes out just fine. Take Black Library as overblown propaganda stuff and that's a lot more accurate.
Besides, if we're going to get into actual fluff and what should be reflected on a table, there should be several hundred million guardsmen and hundreds of thousands of Leman Russ tanks for every Space Marine in existence. When you get your S5 Assault 6 Rending bolters, I'll take take entireTank Divisions as individual troops choices
...Where did I say all this?
It's sort of funny how it's gakky writing when Marines do impressive feats, and when Straken punches at the strength of a Dreadknight it's cool. When Yarrick stands up again after being downed several times by overcharged Plasma Blastguns it's perfectly immersive, but if a Marine has anything more than a very minor chance of surviving a hit from a plasma pistol it's mary sue childwriting bullgak.
Funnily enough, I have seen far far more of the type of fanboyism SM-fans are usually accused for among IG fans than I have among SM fans. But there's less stigma for IGhammer 40k, I guess, which the current 40k pretty much is in terms if who comes off best statwise compared to the fluff.
Btw, call BL absurd as much as you like, but I'd argue the exact other way around. Can't say a lot about Brothers of the Snake as I have not read it yet, but it sounds like it might be a tad OTT given that DE soldiers are a bit more threatening.
I am aware it's difficult ro change much of the game structure by now (which would be necessary to bring me back, at least) but that does not make the status quo anywhere near good.
I second the approval of the FFG books fwiw.
This whole situation with IG fans reminds me of my WoW RP server, where there's gritty realistic grimdark RPers who ignore the prevalence of magic and monsters in favour of dirty, bloody military RP.
40k is a setting where part of its charm is that humans are on the bottom rung, and the ladder has a LOT of rungs. Part of the grimderp, maaan!
Vaktathi wrote: To get kill rates to what you would deem acceptable, if kiling guardsmen is the measure we're using, they'd need to be S5, which mathematically would make them the same thing as S6 AP3 against marines.
S5 sounds nice. Fire Warriors have proven that S5 infantry weapons need not be broken. Other adjustments would also be needed of course but it's a step in the right decision.
If your immersion is broken because you can't just literally sweep guardsmen off a table with a broom, I'm sorry, this game has never, ever been that way.
Tradition is not a justification.
If you must see marines the way some of the more absurd BL writers portray them, well, you're never going to get a workable game out of that, and a lot of those tales are difficult to take in the first place. The game stats work just fine, a squad of marines will utterly ruin a squad of guardsmen with very little return threat. That works for me. We don't need recreations of Brothers of the Snake where a single tactical squad takes on 47,000pts worth of Dark Eldar and comes out just fine. Take Black Library as overblown propaganda stuff and that's a lot more accurate.
Besides, if we're going to get into actual fluff and what should be reflected on a table, there should be several hundred million guardsmen and hundreds of thousands of Leman Russ tanks for every Space Marine in existence. When you get your S5 Assault 6 Rending bolters, I'll take take entireTank Divisions as individual troops choices
...Where did I say all this?
It's sort of funny how it's gakky writing when Marines do impressive feats, and when Straken punches at the strength of a Dreadknight it's cool. When Yarrick stands up again after being downed several times by overcharged Plasma Blastguns it's perfectly immersive, but if a Marine has anything more than a very minor chance of surviving a hit from a plasma pistol it's mary sue childwriting bullgak.
Funnily enough, I have seen far far more of the type of fanboyism SM-fans are usually accused for among IG fans than I have among SM fans. But there's less stigma for IGhammer 40k, I guess, which the current 40k pretty much is in terms if who comes off best statwise compared to the fluff.
Btw, call BL absurd as much as you like, but I'd argue the exact other way around. Can't say a lot about Brothers of the Snake as I have not read it yet, but it sounds like it might be a tad OTT given that DE soldiers are a bit more threatening.
I am aware it's difficult ro change much of the game structure by now (which would be necessary to bring me back, at least) but that does not make the status quo anywhere near good.
I second the approval of the FFG books fwiw.
This whole situation with IG fans reminds me of my WoW RP server, where there's gritty realistic grimdark RPers who ignore the prevalence of magic and monsters in favour of dirty, bloody military RP.
40k is a setting where part of its charm is that humans are on the bottom rung, and the ladder has a LOT of rungs. Part of the grimderp, maaan!
Guard players accept that for every few hundred thousand of men that die, 1 may be special enough to be the hero.
Space Marine extreme fans want all their soldiers to be special enough to be the hero.
The difference is when space marines do nutty things, its always stupid. When yarrick has a chance at brushing off his wounds we recognize he is such an exception that his name in a force of billions is recognized.
Us Guard players dont like an army of exceptions, so when Marine fans want an army of exceptions we naturally get annoyed. In my opinion
Vaktathi wrote: To get kill rates to what you would deem acceptable, if kiling guardsmen is the measure we're using, they'd need to be S5, which mathematically would make them the same thing as S6 AP3 against marines.
S5 sounds nice. Fire Warriors have proven that S5 infantry weapons need not be broken. Other adjustments would also be needed of course but it's a step in the right decision.
And there's your problem right there. You know why pulse rifles are S5 30"? So that they would be better than bolters. Bolters are used as a baseline when comparing infantry weapons. Lasguns are less powerful than bolters. Shuriken are the same as bolters, just more shots at a shorter range*. ect. Not only that we only have a limited range to work with. The difference between low and high powered weapons of the same type is usually within 1 point of strength. If we had up to strength 25 or something, than it could be done, but it's the limitations of the medium. Not only that, balance and game issues.
Ashiraya wrote: It's sort of funny how it's gakky writing when Marines do impressive feats, and when Straken punches at the strength of a Dreadknight it's cool. When Yarrick stands up again after being downed several times by overcharged Plasma Blastguns it's perfectly immersive, but if a Marine has anything more than a very minor chance of surviving a hit from a plasma pistol it's mary sue childwriting bullgak.
The thing is, the non-marine examples are great heroes in their Codex. Unmatched by any normal trooper. Once-in-a-lifetime deals. Everyone around them dies in droves when anything looks sternly in their direction.
The bad SM writing has every Joe Schmoe battle-brother be an unstoppable tank moving at the speed of the wind, killing one more of an endless horde of enemies with every shot or strike. Even with the best armor and weapons marines shouldn't be in situations where they have to engage vastly superior numbers to begin with. But ofc, a story about a perfect drop pod assault where every marine guns down 2-3 guys and goes home would just be... Boring. Just as it would be boring to read about the guys who drag in more ammo and cart out the wounded.
StarHunter25 wrote: Heh, play the FFG40k RPG and you'll see what true-to-fluff bolters are like. On average I think it takes around 6 hits to kill a marine in power armour. Eldar turn to a fine red mist if they take a hit or two. Honestly, if I could figure out how, I'd just use Black Crusade/Only War/Dark Heresy instead of the current tabletop rules.
Keep in mind even within that system there has been a lot of changing of weapons and differing stats between different systems. The stats for a vehicle mounted Heavy Bolter or a Plasma Gun were significantly less impressive than SM bolters in the first release of Deathwatch, which got subsequently way toned down. I haven't read the new Dark Heresy rules, but the first rules put out for Space Marines when Dark Heresy was the only system were far less impressive than the Deathwatch Marines, which are supposed to be singular heroes and more capable than NPC marines.
S5 sounds nice. Fire Warriors have proven that S5 infantry weapons need not be broken. Other adjustments would also be needed of course but it's a step in the right decision.
Fire Warriors also have significant drawbacks and S5 basic guns is their defining and unique characteristic. They're also supposed to be better than bolters, so then *they'd* need a buff of course...
Tradition is not a justification.
Perhaps not, but fluff bloat from a non-gaming related department is much less of a good reason.
...Where did I say all this?
When you began to complain about your immersion being broken because Bolters only killed IG infantry with 80% the efficiency of plasma guns and that just wasn't good enough (which is about close as they can get in a D6 system without being identical)
It's sort of funny how it's gakky writing when Marines do impressive feats, and when Straken punches at the strength of a Dreadknight it's cool. When Yarrick stands up again after being downed several times by overcharged Plasma Blastguns it's perfectly immersive, but if a Marine has anything more than a very minor chance of surviving a hit from a plasma pistol it's mary sue childwriting bullgak.
You're comparing unique individuals, worthy of singling out amongst untold trillions for their heroic deeds and capabilities, to the most commonly seen troops choice in the game, around which almost all other mechanics are built and everything is measured as a baseline.
There's a big difference there, and the comparison is a bit silly in that light. You won't see non-SCIG characters doing any of those things, just as you won't see typical SM captains walking away from Demolisher Cannon wounds the way Lysander can.
That said, I'm not much of a fan of Straken either, nor pretty much anything Catachan.
Funnily enough, I have seen far far more of the type of fanboyism SM-fans are usually accused for among IG fans than I have among SM fans. But there's less stigma for IGhammer 40k, I guess, which the current 40k pretty much is in terms if who comes off best statwise compared to the fluff.
I play many armies. I've got IG, I've got CSM's (which I'll be playing tomorrow in a tournament with three full squads of basic CSM's rocking lots of bolters), I've got Eldar, I've got Tau, I've got Grey Knights, I've got Sisters, and I've even got Tyranids and about 2kpts worth of Orks sitting in a box, and probably 2500pts of loyalist marines that have just appeared over the years. I play just about everything. What I prefer is keeping stuff from jumping the shark too much.
Btw, call BL absurd as much as you like, but I'd argue the exact other way around. Can't say a lot about Brothers of the Snake as I have not read it yet, but it sounds like it might be a tad OTT given that DE soldiers are a bit more threatening.
It literally has a single tactical squad killing thousands (not an exaggeration, they flat out state it) of Dark Eldar at close quarters in a single engagement. I actually couldn't finish the book.
The game has been more or less consistent over twenty seven years, Black Library are the ones who get more and more outlandish. That's not a fault of the game or something it needs to live up to. It's BL that's driving the expansion of SM ridiculousness, and the game doesn't need to cater to that.
I'm not asking for space marines to live up to novelizations or be superheros. I want them to be worth their points. And they still aren't. The really haven't been since 4th, I think.
The crowd is split on how to handle this. One group doesn't want marines any cheaper, and the others don't want to change the boltgun.
The issue here is that GW, by using D6's and limited the stats to such a narrow range of numbers has made it very difficult to differentiate weapons and troops. I don't see a good fix to this problem.
Martel732 wrote: The crowd is split on how to handle this. One group doesn't want marines any cheaper, and the others don't want to change the boltgun.
The issue here is that GW, by using D6's and limited the stats to such a narrow range of numbers has made it very difficult to differentiate weapons and troops. I don't see a good fix to this problem.
Maybe change to a D10 System and suck all the money out of everyone by making them buy all new sets of dice? They wouldn't even have to change the stats much, just alter all the charts to incorporate the larger dice. So your S4 weapon won't wound a T8 MC on a 6, but what about on an 8 or 9?
How much better would you make the bolter without treading into heavy bolter or pulse rifle territory?
Likewise, how much cheaper would you make them? They're already cheaper than they've ever been, how much cheaper do you make them?And then how many other Troops units will need to be adjusted in turn?
Listening to the audio book for unremembered empire and apparently 10 doods with boltguns can nearly take out a primarch. and these things hitting a basicily 2+ armor save will T5+ are able to nearly put girlyman down.
From a fluff standpoint it should be shred and rending since the things are mini frag missiles shot out of a heavy machine gun.
To be fair, with that sort of a weapon, they also should only have an effective range of about 9-12" and be fired at BS2.
Such weaponry has been attempted, "rocket guns" exist, have for a while actually (since the 60's at least), they've been tried.
The problem is that they take time to build up speed. A normal bullet leaves the muzzle at the highest velocity it's ever going to have, it's effectively at its most stable at that point. Something like a bolter is exactly the opposite, its actually travelling very slowly at the point it leaves the muzzle and is still accelerating, and thus not particularly ballistically stable, and as such have trouble hitting targets more than a few dozen meters away. That's not even getting into the fact that they'd also have a minimum range, as they're still accelerating when they leave the barrel, the Gyrojet Rocket Pistol's projectile only traveled at about 10ft/second where it left the barrel, wasn't potentially lethal until about 8-10 feet, and didn't reach max velocity until about 30-50 feet and then decreased in effectiveness from there.
They sound cool, but would actually have lots of basic physics working against their effectiveness.
Thats not what a bolt-gun is. A bolt-gun is essentially a high caliber explosive round. I imagine it would function every bit like a semi auto grenade launcher capable of knocking through a small wall before launching molten metal into it's target. So in relation to human weapons today. It would be like a 60 mm HE motar round. Typically these things destroy everything in the room.
Vaktathi wrote: How much better would you make the bolter without treading into heavy bolter or pulse rifle territory?
Likewise, how much cheaper would you make them? They're already cheaper than they've ever been, how much cheaper do you make them?And then how many other Troops units will need to be adjusted in turn?
How about just a stock Assault 2 for Marines using Bolters? Granted, I feel Necrons should be adjusted to be the same (because these are super humans or robots wielding giant guns) but I think it is a decent solution. That just means you adjust the Storm Bolter to be better, because Tactical Terminators need the boost anyway.
Bam, done.
The problem with bolters is not to do with math hammer or fluff or ap values or strength.
The problem is about awesomeness. The vast majority of people who play this game are not number crunchers or min maxers, they play for fun and because genetically engineered super warriors from grim dark land are awesome!
Rolling shooting for bolters it does not feel awesome at all :(, it feels weak when you roll the dice. Rapid fire improves things but not by much. It feels like pissing in the sea.
Ugly Green Trog wrote: The problem with bolters is not to do with math hammer or fluff or ap values or strength.
The problem is about awesomeness. The vast majority of people who play this game are not number crunchers or min maxers, they play for fun and because genetically engineered super warriors from grim dark land are awesome!
Rolling shooting for bolters it does not feel awesome at all :(, it feels weak when you roll the dice. Rapid fire improves things but not by much. It feels like pissing in the sea.
ya know... I don't totally disagree with that, and with that in mind. assault 2 would proably be better in that regard cause then you're shooting rapidly all the time. thus it feels "more awesome"
Ugly Green Trog wrote: The problem with bolters is not to do with math hammer or fluff or ap values or strength.
The problem is about awesomeness. The vast majority of people who play this game are not number crunchers or min maxers, they play for fun and because genetically engineered super warriors from grim dark land are awesome!
Rolling shooting for bolters it does not feel awesome at all :(, it feels weak when you roll the dice. Rapid fire improves things but not by much. It feels like pissing in the sea.
ya know... I don't totally disagree with that, and with that in mind. assault 2 would proably be better in that regard cause then you're shooting rapidly all the time. thus it feels "more awesome"
Assault 2 and some kind of pseudo rending would help a lot.
Well, that aside, it just seems like a dubious request.
For a start, Rending seems like a *very* powerful rule to include on basic weapons. You're practically giving them Gauss *and* Bladestorm - both of which are also on models who can't take special weapons of any kind. It just seems like an incredibly potent ability to just hand out to marines. Especially when a lot of already-strong units are also armed with bolters.
Then, one of the main complaints I hear from marine players is that there's too much AP2/3 in the game at the moment, and so their saves are pretty worthless. So, their solution is to add *more* AP2 to the game - on basic weapons, no less. And, basic weapons that are on about a third of all armies as standard (with many others having easy access to them). I just don't see how this will improve the problem of AP2/3 saturation. Or, is more AP2/3 fine as long as it's marines wielding them?
Vaktathi wrote: Fire Warriors also have significant drawbacks and S5 basic guns is their defining and unique characteristic. They're also supposed to be better than bolters, so then *they'd* need a buff of course...
In a D6 1-10 system, I do not think there is enough granularity to differentiatiate pulse rifle and bolter strength.
Perhaps not, but fluff bloat from a non-gaming related department is much less of a good reason.
That 'fluff bloat' is the source of most fluff in the setting. What is an 'okay' source then? Studio fluff where a company of BA Terminators killed hundreds of thousands of genestealers on their own (I'd like to see them do that on the tabletop, lol)?
When you began to complain about your immersion being broken because Bolters only killed IG infantry with 80% the efficiency of plasma guns and that just wasn't good enough (which is about close as they can get in a D6 system without being identical)
You know, I don't think there should be a lot of difference there for guardsmen. Either you're hit by several large explosive rounds and turned to a red paste, or you're hit by superheated plasma and melted to red paste. Death is death. It'd also make GEQ a good counter to plasma since plasma would effectively become redundant against them.
You're comparing unique individuals, worthy of singling out amongst untold trillions for their heroic deeds and capabilities, to the most commonly seen troops choice in the game, around which almost all other mechanics are built and everything is measured as a baseline. There's a big difference there, and the comparison is a bit silly in that light. You won't see non-SCIG characters doing any of those things, just as you won't see typical SM captains walking away from Demolisher Cannon wounds the way Lysander can.
That said, I'm not much of a fan of Straken either, nor pretty much anything Catachan.
What about having your officer shout at your guardsmen suddenly lets them penetrate tank plate with their lasguns, something that simply can't happen otherwise? Seems immersive and logical.
Funnily enough, I have seen far far more of the type of fanboyism SM-fans are usually accused for among IG fans than I have among SM fans. But there's less stigma for IGhammer 40k, I guess, which the current 40k pretty much is in terms if who comes off best statwise compared to the fluff.
I play many armies. I've got IG, I've got CSM's (which I'll be playing tomorrow in a tournament with three full squads of basic CSM's rocking lots of bolters), I've got Eldar, I've got Tau, I've got Grey Knights, I've got Sisters, and I've even got Tyranids and about 2kpts worth of Orks sitting in a box, and probably 2500pts of loyalist marines that have just appeared over the years. I play just about everything. What I prefer is keeping stuff from jumping the shark too much.
Not referring to just you, more a general observation.
It literally has a single tactical squad killing thousands (not an exaggeration, they flat out state it) of Dark Eldar at close quarters in a single engagement. I actually couldn't finish the book.
The game has been more or less consistent over twenty seven years, Black Library are the ones who get more and more outlandish. That's not a fault of the game or something it needs to live up to. It's BL that's driving the expansion of SM ridiculousness, and the game doesn't need to cater to that.
The game itself works somewhat, although I'd argue that the 'SM ridiculousness' is an inherent part of the setting and part of what makes the common guardsman what he is as well. What the game does compared to the fluff is taking all armies that are not guardsmen, crossbreeding them with guardsmen, and taking the result and calling it an army.
For one, if one lose ~50% of one's SM army even when you win (like you often do in the game, and being tabled is not uncommon), your average chapter would be extinct in a matter of weeks. And this is against 2x their number of guardsmen, where both have somewhat equivalent support. Wow so super-elite. Makes the game so easy to reconcile with studio fluff.
Bolters are not fantastic weapons, but they are not that bad. They seem to be in the middle of the crowd when it comes to basic weapon. They are superior to grotblasta, lasguns, fleshborer, guardien shuriken catapult, ork shoota and about as powerful than splinter rifle and kroot rifle. On the other hand they are weaker than avenger shuriken catapult, pulse rifle, warriors and immortal gauss wepons. Fluff wise it makes a lot of sense. Eldars, Taus and Necron have far better technologie and craftsmen than the Imperium, thus there weapons are more powerful. When you read the description of these weapon they also are much more impressive than the mini-rocket launcher that is the boltgun. The problem of improving the boltgun is that it would require to improve the other weapons of these civilisations to represent their superior technologie. Then you find yourself with weapon so powerful that even Space Marines and Necrons (the too most endurent troops in the game by landslide) are unable to stand on the tabletop to even basic firearms. Those two army already have a problem linked to the increase of firepower that we observed since 5th eddition with larger and more powerful vehicule dominating the batttleground. Such a change would be very bad for everybody. Space Marine (and SoB) should still be happy a full round of shooting with their boltguns still cripple most squads of guardsmen, eldars, dark eldar, gaunts, orks, kroots and taus. Not that bad not just destructive...
Martel732 wrote: The crowd is split on how to handle this. One group doesn't want marines any cheaper, and the others don't want to change the boltgun.
The issue here is that GW, by using D6's and limited the stats to such a narrow range of numbers has made it very difficult to differentiate weapons and troops. I don't see a good fix to this problem.
Maybe change to a D10 System and suck all the money out of everyone by making them buy all new sets of dice? They wouldn't even have to change the stats much, just alter all the charts to incorporate the larger dice. So your S4 weapon won't wound a T8 MC on a 6, but what about on an 8 or 9?
Noc
No, no all the stats would have to change. That would the be whole point of using D10s. D20s would even better. We could have toughnesses that range from 4 to 18 then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: How much better would you make the bolter without treading into heavy bolter or pulse rifle territory?
Likewise, how much cheaper would you make them? They're already cheaper than they've ever been, how much cheaper do you make them?And then how many other Troops units will need to be adjusted in turn?
As I said, without a D10 system, I don't think this can be fixed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
koooaei wrote: Who cares bout bolters - you've got atsknf, 3+, krak nades and rhinos/pods. Best stuff for troops.
Too bad a lot of that stuff doesn't matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: Because Eldar have rending. A xenos army can't have something that Marines don't have.
I don't see anything in the marine list remotely as good as WS or even the scatterlaser. So please stop with the hyperbole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
epronovost wrote: Bolters are not fantastic weapons, but they are not that bad. They seem to be in the middle of the crowd when it comes to basic weapon. They are superior to grotblasta, lasguns, fleshborer, guardien shuriken catapult, ork shoota and about as powerful than splinter rifle and kroot rifle. On the other hand they are weaker than avenger shuriken catapult, pulse rifle, warriors and immortal gauss wepons. Fluff wise it makes a lot of sense. Eldars, Taus and Necron have far better technologie and craftsmen than the Imperium, thus there weapons are more powerful. When you read the description of these weapon they also are much more impressive than the mini-rocket launcher that is the boltgun. The problem of improving the boltgun is that it would require to improve the other weapons of these civilisations to represent their superior technologie. Then you find yourself with weapon so powerful that even Space Marines and Necrons (the too most endurent troops in the game by landslide) are unable to stand on the tabletop to even basic firearms. Those two army already have a problem linked to the increase of firepower that we observed since 5th eddition with larger and more powerful vehicule dominating the batttleground. Such a change would be very bad for everybody. Space Marine (and SoB) should still be happy a full round of shooting with their boltguns still cripple most squads of guardsmen, eldars, dark eldar, gaunts, orks, kroots and taus. Not that bad not just destructive...
It's the basic weapon of an expensive troop. That's the problem. I constantly ignore bolter-armed marines and tactical squad in general when I play. It's never caused me problems.
Vaktathi wrote: Fire Warriors also have significant drawbacks and S5 basic guns is their defining and unique characteristic. They're also supposed to be better than bolters, so then *they'd* need a buff of course...
In a D6 1-10 system, I do not think there is enough granularity to differentiatiate pulse rifle and bolter strength.
GW's been fairly consistent in that pulse rifles are exceedingly powerful weapons, much moreso than bolters. That was the Tau's original claim to fame, their core guns were far and away more powerful than the weapons of any other race, Space Marine or Eldar included. More than enough to justify being differentiated, over 4 editions.
You know, I don't think there should be a lot of difference there for guardsmen. Either you're hit by several large explosive rounds and turned to a red paste, or you're hit by superheated plasma and melted to red paste. Death is death.
One's a superheated ball of plasma that even a near miss can cause fatal injuries on and a direct hit will leave nothing left but smoking boots. While a bolter may leave grisly wounds or tear off limbs in graphic instances, it's possible for a clipping hit to not properly detonate the round or you may get a dud (remarkably common with explosives), a near miss may inflict non-debliitating shrapnel wounds instead of taking off a hand, etc. A "hit" roll int he game doesn't necessarily mean you got a bullseye in the middle of the chest, it means the shot hit it an area where it's possible to do damage.
Autocannons are an excellent example of this kind of abstraction. You have a weapon firing explosive shells capable of penetrating medium tanks. SM's get an armor save against it. This doesn't mean the SM is taking the hit dead center to the chest and shrugging it off, but that near misses which would inflict fearsome concussion damage and shrapnel wounds on lighter armored infantry, shearing off feet or inflicting a dozen nasty shrapnel wounds against something like a basic Guardsmen, is mostly absorbed and deflected by the armor, usually requiring a direct hit to actually put the Marine down (as represented by a failed save).
Bolters are not the most fearsome weapons in the universe, not even close. They're insanely fearsome next to a lasgun or a basic slug-throwing assault rifle. But in general, they share a similar Strength and AP with something akin to a .50cal machinegun (Heavy Stubbers). Such are fearsome weapons as well, but at the same time (contrary to many unfortunate myths) these can fail to decisively put a combatant down depending on where and how they hit (a grazing hit through the top of the shoulder may hurt and bleed a lot and shred a chunk of muscle tissue, may even break or shatter a bone, but the soldier may still be able to move and fight for a little while longer).
It'd also make GEQ a good counter to plasma since plasma would effectively become redundant against them.
There's not a particularly compelling balance need for it, the difference is already very small, most people already consider throwing plasmas at GEQ's to be wasteful overkill.
What about having your officer shout at your guardsmen suddenly lets them penetrate tank plate with their lasguns, something that simply can't happen otherwise? Seems immersive and logical.
If we're going to go off on this unrelated tangent here and get into everything that doesn't make immediate sense, we're going to be here a very long time. You could make the same case for ATSKNF, the "fearless" space marines aren't actually *fearless*, they can be made to run, they just immediately recover from it 5 seconds later and turn right back around to the same position he just ran away from, while there are other, actually Fearless units. Or how shining a laser pointer at an enemy tank from one direction makes unguided munitions from other vectors more accurate.
The game itself works somewhat, although I'd argue that the 'SM ridiculousness' is an inherent part of the setting and part of what makes the common guardsman what he is as well. What the game does compared to the fluff is taking all armies that are not guardsmen, crossbreeding them with guardsmen, and taking the result and calling it an army.
For one, if one lose ~50% of one's SM army even when you win (like you often do in the game, and being tabled is not uncommon), your average chapter would be extinct in a matter of weeks. And this is against 2x their number of guardsmen, where both have somewhat equivalent support. Wow so super-elite. Makes the game so easy to reconcile with studio fluff.
I would say it's a matter of perspective and the types of battles a game is actually representing.
In reality, if a 40k board were in actual scale to real life (where hand to hand combat isn't just something that's even a possibility but that occurs usually several times in most games), then several things immediately come up. One, an entire gameboard is really a very small battle area of only a couple hundred feet across and a few hundred wide, these are areas which would be considered point blank overrun engagements in any realistic battle, where even 72" would translate to maybe two or three hundred feet or so, where small arms fire like rifles should have no problems reaching out to very accurately, and in fact so sor short that anti-tank missiles might not even have enough time to arm their warheads. We're talking absurdly short ranged battles, with artificially capped ranges. Even if you want to extrapolated the ranges out logarithmically, we're talking very short ranged battles.
Even more relevant, every one of those short ranged battlse is more or less a frontal, pitched engagement. Such affairs tend to be exceedingly brutal. Ultimately, this is the only way to really make a playable wargame, but are not representative of most battles fought. Going back to your earlier observation, we could take a more real life example to put it into perspective. Something like the SAS or US Navy Seals are obscenely elite troops with incredible morale, training and experience, amongst the best combatants in human history. However, if you throw such troops into a pitched battle, from the front, against an enemy (who knows who they're fighting and generally where they're coming from) that's fielding armor and well equipped with heavy weapons in prepared positions supported by artillery (and who may be able to contest the skies or even dominate them), or expect such elite troops to hold ground in front of such an opponent storming field positions they occupy, even such elite forces are probably going to take casualties which would be unsustainable or even permanently crippling or may wipe them out entirely, even against opposing forces comprised of relatively mediocre troops, and without necessarily inflicting proportionate casualties back at their adversary.
Meanwhile, something like a drop pod assault on an unsuspecting rebel command HQ and killing everyone in the middle of the night may be fluffy and more fitting, but doesn't make for a very fun wargame. Likewise playing an Ork Horde that's rushing across the empty plains of armageddon, 25km from the IG's front lines, and having to sweep your army off the board with a broom as the IG artillery opens up with several hundred big guns and turns the battlefield into a cratered wasteland and never getting to see your opponent isn't much of a fun wargame either, even if fluffy. Nobody would have much fun watching their army get obliterated by the Tau Air Caste from orbit.
If it can't be helped if one wants to have a playable game. That's not even getting into the problems of scope and scale, half the units in the game really have no business being on normal game boards (e.g. a Deathstrike is a strategic weapon, the only purpose one should really have on a game board is as a mission objective to capture or destroy in a raid type scenario ). The game just ultimately has a lot of problems with scale.
That said, the IA books often do a great job of rationalizing what on-table 40k games would really look like. One that sticks out particularly in my mind is the Vraks campaign. Where the SM's show up for just a couple of times in a very long war, they fight a couple of exceedingly short ranged engagements against entrenched opponents and take horrific losses. The Dark Angels show up with half the chapter, and nearly half of those are flat out killed in 4 days of fighting through hab blocks and a spaceport against heretical Vraksian militia and a few Traitor Legionnaires. The Red Scorpions show up just to exploit and hold a breach made in the defenses of the Vraksian Renegades long enough for the DKoK to get into position and consolidate it themselves, and the Red Scorpions take huge losses, with their Commander even being so grievously wounded in attacks by enemy infantry on their position that he had to be dragged from the field by the apothecary (in game terms, this would be akin to losing his last wound). It's almost exclusively engagements like this which a normal 40k game would really be portraying, and in such light 40k games then make much more sense.
As I said, without a D10 system, I don't think this can be fixed.
A D10 scale would be much better in general, particularly when, in a D6 system built on a statline of 1-10, the first couple gradients are almost entirely ignored (there's nothing in the the game that runs around with Toughness 1 and nearly nothing with Toughness 2 for example) and the overwhelmingly vast majority of non-vehicle units exist within the range of 3-5.
That would require an extensive reboot of the rules however. That said, it would not surprise me if we got an extensive reboot after 7th, this current edition is already so expansive, so wacky, and so hard for most people to simply digest and stay up to date with, that at 6 months in it's already looking like the creaking hull of very late 2nd edition.
If your immersion is broken because you can't just literally sweep guardsmen off a table with a broom, I'm sorry, this game has never, ever been that way. If you must see marines the way some of the more absurd BL writers portray them, well, you're never going to get a workable game out of that.
Swastakowey wrote: Hit guardsmen on 3+, wound guardsmen on 3+ no save allowed.
Assuming rapid fire:
2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = average 0,8712 kills.
So no, on average he will kill less than one guardsman with close range rapid fire outside of cover.
Which, for reasons previously stated, is really, really immersion-breaking.
That is not how statistics work, that means that 87% of the times he fires he kills the guard, that is pretty damn consistent.
Vaktathi wrote: That said, the IA books often do a great job of rationalizing what on-table 40k games would really look like. One that sticks out particularly in my mind is the Vraks campaign. Where the SM's show up for just a couple of times in a very long war, they fight a couple of exceedingly short ranged engagements against entrenched opponents and take horrific losses. The Dark Angels show up with half the chapter, and nearly half of those are flat out killed in 4 days of fighting through hab blocks and a spaceport against heretical Vraksian militia and a few Traitor Legionnaires. The Red Scorpions show up just to exploit and hold a breach made in the defenses of the Vraksian Renegades long enough for the DKoK to get into position and consolidate it themselves, and the Red Scorpions take huge losses, with their Commander even being so grievously wounded in attacks by enemy infantry on their position that he had to be dragged from the field by the apothecary (in game terms, this would be akin to losing his last wound). It's almost exclusively engagements like this which a normal 40k game would really be portraying, and in such light 40k games then make much more sense.
There are about 1000 marines in a Chapter. Imagine how long they'd last if every decent engagement they lost 250 marines?
Marines do die, but there has to be a manageable level of attrition otherwise they'd simply be wiped out too quickly to qualify as defenders of humanity.
Vaktathi wrote: That said, the IA books often do a great job of rationalizing what on-table 40k games would really look like. One that sticks out particularly in my mind is the Vraks campaign. Where the SM's show up for just a couple of times in a very long war, they fight a couple of exceedingly short ranged engagements against entrenched opponents and take horrific losses. The Dark Angels show up with half the chapter, and nearly half of those are flat out killed in 4 days of fighting through hab blocks and a spaceport against heretical Vraksian militia and a few Traitor Legionnaires. The Red Scorpions show up just to exploit and hold a breach made in the defenses of the Vraksian Renegades long enough for the DKoK to get into position and consolidate it themselves, and the Red Scorpions take huge losses, with their Commander even being so grievously wounded in attacks by enemy infantry on their position that he had to be dragged from the field by the apothecary (in game terms, this would be akin to losing his last wound). It's almost exclusively engagements like this which a normal 40k game would really be portraying, and in such light 40k games then make much more sense.
There are about 1000 marines in a Chapter. Imagine how long they'd last if every decent engagement they lost 250 marines?
Marines do die, but there has to be a manageable level of attrition otherwise they'd simply be wiped out too quickly to qualify as defenders of humanity.
I think that's a greater issue with GW's portrayal of SM's and the fluff having such ludicrously low numbers in general meaning that they *should* face critical issues of sustainability. They're so limited in numbers that even a relatively small enemy success could wipe out a chapter. Catch half a dozen thunderhawks on their way down with interceptors and anti-aircraft fire? Well, there goes almost two companies of marines and a fifth of the chapter. Anti-orbital defenses shoot down that Battle Barge and an accompanying Strike Cruisers? Oops, there went two thirds of the chapter. Things like this just aren't even thought of (usually anyway, once again the Vraks campaign mentions no SM's were willing to engage Vraks on their own or to engage the Citadel directly) even though they're entirely possible, usually because they'd make for very poor showcases of Space Marine amazingness.
This is on top of being so mythically rare on a galactic scale as to be completely absent from the vast majority of conflicts (and even in those that they do show up in, they'd be almost nowhere), and militarily negligible on a such a scale, particularly when set against the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guardsmen and tens of thousands of entire IG regiments per each individual Space Marine (who, even if we assumed absolutely ludicrous estimates of their capabilities relative to non-astartes human troops and then multiplied that by a thousand fold, would still represent a military value for the entirety of the Astartes so small on a galactic scale as to remain negligible due to the absurd numbers gap).
And thus this reveals GW isn't good at numbers or thinking things through on a galactic scale or relative to the numbers they give for other factions (SM's would make a whole lot more sense if they numbered at least ten billion, x10,000 what they are now), and that 40k isn't really a Scifi universe but a fantasy universe set "in spaaaace"... But that's really for another thread.
Vaktathi wrote: I think that's a greater issue with GW's portrayal of SM's and the fluff having such ludicrously low numbers in general meaning that they *should* face critical issues of sustainability. They're so limited in numbers that even a relatively small enemy success could wipe out a chapter.
It works once you completely disregard any game mechanics for what they are - game mechanics that have no relation to the fluff whatsoever and basically form a Halo tabletop game with a 40k skin. No, you can't say 'some game mechanics are fine and some are not.' They are pretty much all bonkers. I often see the 66% protection rate of Power Armour be quoted, but people curiously leave out how their Company Commander can survive Heavy Bolter hits that would kill two Guardsmen. When naked. So no, you can't cherrypick. Either no game mechanics have any bearing on the fluff, or your fluff is some weird place where conscripts consistently parry every third sword strike the Avatar of Khaine makes against them.
Vaktathi wrote: Catch half a dozen thunderhawks on their way down with interceptors and anti-aircraft fire? Well, there goes almost two companies of marines and a fifth of the chapter.
Fortunately, not only are SM air vehicles heavily armoured (enough to match many ground vehicles), they are also fast. A good pre-emptive orbital strike just to be sure should render this situation very rare.
Vaktathi wrote: Anti-orbital defenses shoot down that Battle Barge and an accompanying Strike Cruisers? Oops, there went two thirds of the chapter.
You're assuming they are going to send their ships right into the teeth of defenses that heavy? That's what you have Navy support for. SM ships are really, really good, but they are above all designed to transport and support its inhabitants. SM ships don't do things like that, for the very reasons you give.
Things like this just aren't even thought of (usually anyway, once again the Vraks campaign mentions no SM's were willing to engage Vraks on their own or to engage the Citadel directly) even though they're entirely possible, usually because they'd make for very poor showcases of Space Marine amazingness.
They are also really rare, even in terms of how often they appear in the fluff.
This is on top of being so mythically rare on a galactic scale as to be completely absent from the vast majority of conflicts (and even in those that they do show up in, they'd be almost nowhere), and militarily negligible on a such a scale, particularly when set against the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guardsmen and tens of thousands of entire IG regiments per each individual Space Marine (who, even if we assumed absolutely ludicrous estimates of their capabilities relative to non-astartes human troops and then multiplied that by a thousand fold, would still represent a military value for the entirety of the Astartes so small on a galactic scale as to remain negligible due to the absurd numbers gap).
Aye, 1 million is a bit small. 10 million would be good. So few as to be legendary for most citizens, but thanks to their long lifespans + very high power concentration ability + rapid reaction and redeployment speed, they will be able to contribute significantly to the Imperium where it actually matters: worlds like Cadia and Armageddon that are breaking points for the fate of the Imperium.
40k isn't really a Scifi universe but a fantasy universe set "in spaaaace"... But that's really for another thread.
No gak.
When you consider that SM is an army of Achilles in SPAAAACE, everything makes more sense.
Well, looking at it now, there's two kinds of Troop Weaponry in the game - Subpar but plentiful, and Strong and Elite. The Subpar ones are rather rare - I can only think of Lasguns, actually. The others tend to have at least S 4 and AP 5, and then some kind of bonus that make them unique and not just another bolter - Shuriken Catapults has the almost-Rending thing, Shootas are Assault 2, Pulse Rifles have higher S and range and Gauss Flayers can auto-glance... But bolters have none of these properties.
I've begun to think that some sort of unique change to Bolters would be in order to make them stand up to the rest... I know the other weapons are supposed to very advanced, but Bolters aren't exactly basic either.
Shred would be nice, but I think Rending would be a bit too much. The almost-Rending thing is what Eldar does, so maybe we shouldn't steal that, either...
wuestenfux wrote: The imagination that the enemies die in droves when shot by bolter wielding Marines is wrong.
I think bolters should have rending without any cost increase.
Rending or Shred? I have heard both would be both good, but am curious what you would think would be a better fix.
Shred might do it. It would take the wounds delivered against T4 by 10 marines from 6.67 wounds to 10 wounds. We go from 2.22 dead meqs to 3.33 dead meqs. But this is within 12" only. It's a difference of less than one marine outside 12".
I think too many quality units in the game just don't care about S4 shooting.
Martel732 wrote: Shred might do it. It would take the wounds delivered against T4 by 10 marines from 6.67 wounds to 10 wounds. We go from 2.22 dead meqs to 3.33 dead meqs. But this is within 12" only. It's a difference of less than one marine outside 12".
I think too many quality units in the game just don't care about S4 shooting.
I'd take shred for no point increase. It would actually pretty reliably wound t6. I think at 14ppm it would be worth taking at least. Id put 20 in rhinos with 2 meltas and know that they could stand a chance in a firefight and thats what I want out of a 180 point squad.
Look, they are never going to fix the utter crapiness of marine basic gear. Apologists and GW as well use the justification that marines have a lot of standard gear. But having a lot of gear that isnt useful just gives them a bucket of crap for 14 pts.
wuestenfux wrote: The chain sword is also an underwhelming weapon.
Give them S+2 and Marines can hit hard in cc.
I agree that it's underwhelming - giving it shread or rending would be suitable basically the same argument as the bolter. You can't gain a chainsword anywhere without giving up your bolter so I think it's fair if you give up your bolter you should get a comparable weapon. +2 str would be too strong for a free weapon.
Pondering here - Would it make sense to add a general rule for ALL Marines that granted them Shred on all melee attacks, as well as Bolter shots? To represent their heightened skills?
I think so much would be better if Bolters were Assault 2 instead of rapid fire. Combi would be twin-linked assault 2 (which is nice) and storm bolters would be assault 3 which is also nice. There, problem solved.
No, you can't say 'some game mechanics are fine and some are not.' They are pretty much all bonkers.
I think my bigger point here is that GW fluff is highly variable, painfully contradictory in many respects, and often simply flat out disconnected from itself. Let the game stick to better defined generalities with regards to fluff rather than getting caught up in specifics of things like small arms or how many individual marines die in a game, and adjust things based on gameplay necessity within said generalities.
Fortunately, not only are SM air vehicles heavily armoured (enough to match many ground vehicles), they are also fast. A good pre-emptive orbital strike just to be sure should render this situation very rare.
I find it odd that people assume that SM everything is just so overwhelmingly invulnerable to everything that the idea of losing half a dozen dropships when engaging an entire planet is nearly impossible to believe. For any other faction, Eldar, Tau, Guard, Chaos, etc it wouldn't be, even with vessels of similar speed and armor like Vampires, Orcas or Marauders. Likewise, we have the speed stats for Thunderhawks given to us by GW, which is 2000 km/h, which means a 42 year old F-15 can overtake one with a max speed of ~2650km/h. Hell, an Orca has almost identical armor and is even faster at a quoted 2100kp/h. Nobody would bat an eye at the Tau losing six of them in a planetary assault.
See where it gets rather silly?
You're assuming they are going to send their ships right into the teeth of defenses that heavy? That's what you have Navy support for. SM ships are really, really good, but they are above all designed to transport and support its inhabitants. SM ships don't do things like that, for the very reasons you give.
If the Imperial Navy is with them, sure. The problem here is that the Imperial Navy doesn't typically accompany Marine strike forces unless they're acting in concert with the Imperial Guard, which they very often are not, particularly in BL fluff where it's just Marines going off on their own things. There's tons of fluff on marine ships leading planetary assaults.
Aye, 1 million is a bit small. 10 million would be good. So few as to be legendary for most citizens,
Even 10 million really would be too small. We're talking a galaxy of between 200-400 billion star systems. GW finally wizened up in 2009 and at least gave relatively realistic (if vague) numbers for the Imperial Guard at "billions" of regiments, each containing thousands of troops. That's a force that can conceivable operate on such a scale. Even if we assume the low end estimate of systems a 200 billion, and assume the Imperium of Man only holds about 1% of those, that's two billion star systems. Even with ten million marines, you're talking a single marine per two hundred star star systems, a single Chapter per two million star systems. That's still spread so thin as to simply be nonexistent, not even simply mythical or legendary.
but thanks to their long lifespans + very high power concentration ability + rapid reaction and redeployment speed, they will be able to contribute significantly to the Imperium where it actually matters: worlds like Cadia and Armageddon that are breaking points for the fate of the Imperium.
If that was what they were portrayed as only doing, that would make a lot more sense, But there's tons of fluff where they are fighting at insignificant outposts, or large numbers of marines hanging about their homeworlds for long periods of time (standing around waiting for something to come along, training, etc), simply "standing watch" over vast areas of space or on specific worlds, performing garrison duties of various and/or far flung chapter holds, attacking into xenos empires, or in some cases nobody knows what they're doing.
The Wise Dane wrote: Well, looking at it now, there's two kinds of Troop Weaponry in the game - Subpar but plentiful, and Strong and Elite. The Subpar ones are rather rare - I can only think of Lasguns, actually. The others tend to have at least S 4 and AP 5, and then some kind of bonus that make them unique and not just another bolter - Shuriken Catapults has the almost-Rending thing, Shootas are Assault 2, Pulse Rifles have higher S and range and Gauss Flayers can auto-glance... But bolters have none of these properties.
I've begun to think that some sort of unique change to Bolters would be in order to make them stand up to the rest... I know the other weapons are supposed to very advanced, but Bolters aren't exactly basic either.
Shred would be nice, but I think Rending would be a bit too much. The almost-Rending thing is what Eldar does, so maybe we shouldn't steal that, either...
I think the issue here is that everything is based *around* the bolter as the standard baseline against which everything else is measured. The basic Tac marine is the standard against which everything else is measured, unlike say WHFB where it's the guardsmen equivalent that is the baseline. Everything is done in comparison to the bolter and the MEQ. The bolter, while powerful relative to basic human weaponry, is also not the most devastating small arm in the universe even in the fluff and in other things like FFG's 40k roleplaying games (which originated as a GW product under Black Industries before they liquidated it in very early 2008).
Shootas are assault 2, but lower AP and on BS2 dudes and have a shorter max range. Shuriken catapults have quasi-rending, but have half the range except on Dire Avengers which are still shorter ranged than bolters (and generally Eldar infantry are *really* squishy). Gauss Flayers can auto-glance, but their squads also don't have any organic heavy/special weapons upgrade capabilities either.
Shred would drastically increase the killing power of bolters beyond any of these weapons, making them more fearsome than even Pulse Rifles against just about everything except T8 or AV11. That would necessitate a notable price increase, the only unit off the top of my head that can give themselves that capability on a ranged weapon in DKoK Combat engineers (T3 4+sv infantry with S3 12" range shotugns) and it's a 1ppm upgrade (on 8ppm infantry) that then also suffers Gets Hot.
Martel732 wrote: Look, they are never going to fix the utter crapiness of marine basic gear. Apologists and GW as well use the justification that marines have a lot of standard gear. But having a lot of gear that isnt useful just gives them a bucket of crap for 14 pts.
What do you want out of Tac Marines and still keep to their generalist role? They're already better equipped and cheaper than they've ever been, any cheaper and they'll be in the same range as many T3 4+sv infantry units that are generally far less capable.
I'm just not sure what people want that's going to be reasonable or change their fundamental role.
While I don't play loyalist marines, I do play CSM's with no Cult units, and the only thing I really find lacking is the ability to assault out of a stationary rhino, which kills their versatility, likewise when facing Tac marines with something like IG, it's the primary weakness I generally get to exploit the most.
And even in fluff, bolters are not displayed as that powerful. A fairly powerful infantry weapon, yes, but the weapons here are so freakishly powerful, that it's relatively normal on the battlefield.
I care if tax marines can charge or not.
My blood angels marines can charge turn one with potentially Weapon skill 5(blood chalice)initiative 5 or 6, strength 5 and potentially 3 attacks per marine...depnds on ic
"What do you want out of Tac Marines and still keep to their generalist role?"
Make them capable of carrying out even a single one of their "generalist" roles. Or make them not generalists. Because generalists are not efficacious.
Am I the only one that thinks all power armored armies expect SoB are actually 'too cheap' for what they do?
I mean just basic GK*, SM and the Chapter specific flavors, and CSM base troops are the best base line troops in the game. (Maybe Necron Warriors, but their initiative is still pretty low.)
Not to mention where I play the tables are often 4' x 4' that means more often then not, the bolter is readily used, and if it's not another MEQ army those bolters make anything wearing 5+ or worse dead quick.
The big issue is rapid fire. In 3rd (still best edition) you could assault and fire rapid fire weapons. A Space Marine Rhino rush, jumps out, and blasts out 16-18 shots and a sergeants bolt pistols, followed by a charge and 21 attacks in close combat, would wipe just about any non marine troop unit off the map in that turn. Then sweep into the next chunk of troops and keep from getting shot to pieces.
Just let rapid fire users assault and it's pretty much problem solved but really I'd rather see more stuff cut back then added in to 'balance' what is still the king of basic infantry weapons.
Of course I'd also like to see things like overwatch, being able to purchase buildings, and the current 'run' rules dropped into a lava pit for all eternity.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Am I the only one that thinks all power armored armies expect SoB are actually 'too cheap' for what they do?
I mean just basic GK*, SM and the Chapter specific flavors, and CSM base troops are the best base line troops in the game. (Maybe Necron Warriors, but their initiative is still pretty low.)
Not to mention where I play the tables are often 4' x 4' that means more often then not, the bolter is readily used, and if it's not another MEQ army those bolters make anything wearing 5+ or worse dead quick.
The big issue is rapid fire. In 3rd (still best edition) you could assault and fire rapid fire weapons. A Space Marine Rhino rush, jumps out, and blasts out 16-18 shots and a sergeants bolt pistols, followed by a charge and 21 attacks in close combat, would wipe just about any non marine troop unit off the map in that turn. Then sweep into the next chunk of troops and keep from getting shot to pieces.
Just let rapid fire users assault and it's pretty much problem solved but really I'd rather see more stuff cut back then added in to 'balance' what is still the king of basic infantry weapons.
Of course I'd also like to see things like overwatch, being able to purchase buildings, and the current 'run' rules dropped into a lava pit for all eternity.
They are a rip off with the way the game has moved in terms of battlefield firepower.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Am I the only one that thinks all power armored armies expect SoB are actually 'too cheap' for what they do?
I mean just basic GK*, SM and the Chapter specific flavors, and CSM base troops are the best base line troops in the game. (Maybe Necron Warriors, but their initiative is still pretty low.)
Not to mention where I play the tables are often 4' x 4' that means more often then not, the bolter is readily used, and if it's not another MEQ army those bolters make anything wearing 5+ or worse dead quick.
The big issue is rapid fire. In 3rd (still best edition) you could assault and fire rapid fire weapons. A Space Marine Rhino rush, jumps out, and blasts out 16-18 shots and a sergeants bolt pistols, followed by a charge and 21 attacks in close combat, would wipe just about any non marine troop unit off the map in that turn. Then sweep into the next chunk of troops and keep from getting shot to pieces.
Just let rapid fire users assault and it's pretty much problem solved but really I'd rather see more stuff cut back then added in to 'balance' what is still the king of basic infantry weapons.
Of course I'd also like to see things like overwatch, being able to purchase buildings, and the current 'run' rules dropped into a lava pit for all eternity.
4X4 versus 6x4 tables are actually much different. That's 150% more space you have, and guess what? 24" on a 6x4 table is much smaller than on a 4x4 table. This is probably why bolters are so readily used, other than they are auto takes on tactical marines.
If we're at the stage where we're considering adding Shred (or even Rending) to one of the most *basic* weapons in the game, does this not speak of problems elsewhere?
I guess I'm just wondering if this is the equivalent of putting a plaster on the patient's knee, whilst he's bleeding out from a massive chest wound.
vipoid wrote: One thing I feel I should say, actually.
If we're at the stage where we're considering adding Shred (or even Rending) to one of the most *basic* weapons in the game, does this not speak of problems elsewhere?
I guess I'm just wondering if this is the equivalent of putting a plaster on the patient's knee, whilst he's bleeding out from a massive chest wound.
Well if we list it out, what weapons do we have and what scale of issues do we have with it?
Bolter has be discussed
Lasgun Generally no one has issues with it
Hot shot- bloody expensive for what it does
Eldar- Presudo rending is BS Gauss- can strip HP which make it strong in an army that doesnt have tooo much specializations so it seems ok
Autoguns- same as las
DE- Lots o poison already, seems fine and has uses
Tau - doesnt really need much as well, kroot sniper rounds are nice though i dont think GW knows how snipers work Orks be orky no real opinion.
vipoid wrote: One thing I feel I should say, actually.
If we're at the stage where we're considering adding Shred (or even Rending) to one of the most *basic* weapons in the game, does this not speak of problems elsewhere?
I guess I'm just wondering if this is the equivalent of putting a plaster on the patient's knee, whilst he's bleeding out from a massive chest wound.
So is it one of the most basic weapons? Or is it a relatively good weapon as many are stating? I agree - it is a basic weapon on the table top. It should not be. It's an .75 caliber rifle. The recoil would be so great that no mere man could wield it standing up. On modern battlefields this is a weapon that is fielded on light tanks as a main gun - comparable to a 20mm or .78 cal weapon.
This is by no means a basic weapon. Its a weapon only a really strong ork nob or a marine could use. (required strength 4) should be in it's profile. And it should be much stronger and it should cost more. If you are wondering what kind of damage this weapon would do to a human being (a guardsman) It would easily blow their body in half and the next 3-4 guardsman behind him. It truely is sad that this weapon has be relegated to something more like a .30 cal weapon on the table top.
So is it one of the most basic weapons? Or is it a relatively good weapon as many are stating? I agree - it is a basic weapon on the table top. It should not be. It's an .75 caliber rifle. The recoil would be so great that no mere man could wield it standing up.
Except they can, and do. Every putz IG sergeant can take a Bolter.
And we won't even get into the sillyness about how recoil would actually work on such a weapon...
On modern battlefields this is a weapon that is fielded on light tanks as a main gun - comparable to a 20mm or .78 cal weapon.
Caliber does not necessarily work that way...we have a direct comparison to a .50cal heavy machinegun in 40k, where the HMG is heavier, but has similar strength. That still makes the bolter *really* powerful, but it's not a light tank gun.
This is by no means a basic weapon.
Relative to what a basic human soldier would typically carry, you are entirely correct. Relative to advanced alien weaponry and bio-engineered monstrosities, it's pretty basic.
Its a weapon only a really strong ork nob or a marine could use. (required strength 4) should be in it's profile.
See above.
And it should be much stronger and it should cost more. If you are wondering what kind of damage this weapon would do to a human being (a guardsman) It would easily blow their body in half and the next 3-4 guardsman behind him.
Not really.
A 2E *heavy bolter* perhaps (when it was a blast weapon) that is more akin in size and role to a 40mm automatic grenade launcher, but a normal bolter has never been described as *that* powerful, and not even modern 20mm autocannons are going to do that kind of insane damage.
It truely is sad that this weapon has be relegated to something more like a .30 cal weapon on the table top.
vipoid wrote: One thing I feel I should say, actually.
If we're at the stage where we're considering adding Shred (or even Rending) to one of the most *basic* weapons in the game, does this not speak of problems elsewhere?
I guess I'm just wondering if this is the equivalent of putting a plaster on the patient's knee, whilst he's bleeding out from a massive chest wound.
So is it one of the most basic weapons? Or is it a relatively good weapon as many are stating? I agree - it is a basic weapon on the table top. It should not be. It's an .75 caliber rifle. The recoil would be so great that no mere man could wield it standing up. On modern battlefields this is a weapon that is fielded on light tanks as a main gun - comparable to a 20mm or .78 cal weapon.
This is by no means a basic weapon. Its a weapon only a really strong ork nob or a marine could use. (required strength 4) should be in it's profile. And it should be much stronger and it should cost more. If you are wondering what kind of damage this weapon would do to a human being (a guardsman) It would easily blow their body in half and the next 3-4 guardsman behind him. It truely is sad that this weapon has be relegated to something more like a .30 cal weapon on the table top.
Don't try and apply real life physics to 40k, you'll only end up sad or confused.
So is it one of the most basic weapons? Or is it a relatively good weapon as many are stating? I agree - it is a basic weapon on the table top. It should not be. It's an .75 caliber rifle. The recoil would be so great that no mere man could wield it standing up.
Except they can, and do. Every putz IG sergeant can take a Bolter.
And we won't even get into the sillyness about how recoil would actually work on such a weapon...
HEY, YES.
Machine guns are strength 4. Bolters are really the correct strength.
Now, Shred is obviously completely ludicrous and terrible. I have no interest in rerolling dice /that do not actually do anything normal s4 doesn't do/ on every single marine unit and imperial vehicle in an entire army.
You'd have to reroll dice every single time you shot a unit. You would not be able to harm any new set of units e.g. t8 or av11, nor would you produce destroyed results, nor would you be able to cause ID or other types of multiple wounds per shot.
Yeah, slap Shred on bolters so that they can kill more Orks. You'd have to, because they are flying orks and bolters are the only weapon, available only on one unit, in the entire marine army, that has skyfire, so they need shred to make good use of the few shots you get.
Wait a minute, that's a mistake. Every single weapon in the army is capable of hurting the things that bolters can hurt. Anyway, you could give them s5 and shred and still hate the tactical squad. A full tactical squad with special can already kill 4-6 Dire Avenger/Fire Warrior equivalents in a round of shooting, it's about as good as it should be. The reason you hate them is the rapid fire rules only give them one real round of shooting before somebody charges. If you get off one round and are still within 12" at the next turn, you had might as well use the extra movement from charging to move up the board.
Hi, anyway, the combination of Vaktathi's IG photo rant and Instant Death have given me an idea. You don't care about this, but I have always thought that "fixing" bolters via special rules was pretty futile/boring. The cool thing is this, you have to introduce the Imperial Guard Officer. An officer has two+ wounds, a basic grunt has one. This doesn't have anything to do with physicality or heroism. It happens instantly on getting a rank assigned, it's actually about how important someone is. A guardsman or battle-brothers job is to point his gun and pull the trigger. If his hand gets mangled, or he suffers a concussion, he can't shoot straight anymore and he gets pulled off the field; he can't do his job. An officer who gets the same mangled hand or the same concussion still has some launch codes to enter, or counterpart to meet, or coordinates to assign, so he stays on the field. It's /not/ /always/ a question of physicality.
However, that guy should still be taken down if an explosive bolt hits him in the head, even just one: bolters have to be able to inflict instant death somehow. Rolls to wound of 6 count as s10 for purposes of instant death. It absolutely has to be rolls to wound. Even though it would be really nice (against armor?) to say "Rolls to hit of six count as s6", you'd have to do an extra set of rolling.
Why is Instant Death a buff that matters? This is the part you especially don't care about which is that for me, in my very specific set of rules, all kinds of armies including marines have FNP. Orks have FNP, Dark Eldar have FNP, all marines have FNP. Marines also have 4+ armor saves, and I had always wanted some way to make bolters somewhat specialized against marines. This has been a really good and productive thread for me to read.
IDGAF about bolters being rapid fire because I allow overwatch against shooting so they get extra rounds of bolter fire. But you, you guys should care about rapid fire.
Kosake wrote: I think so much would be better if Bolters were Assault 2 instead of rapid fire.
Not quite. Because no one cares if tac marines can assault or not.
Marines care. They are too expensive to put units on every part of the field. They need to charge so they can get +9" from assault and consolidate moves. You are also always going to be in a situation where one unit is at an advantage if it gets to keep shooting and the other one will take that away by charging, or where one unit needs to charge and the other one preempts it.
This is before you notice that except against flak armor a marine with a bolter and pistol can kill more by charging than by taking his two bolt shots.
In regards to the bolters recoil, the way they're set up as gyrojet weapons reduces recoil dramatically.
Bolters are good as a basic weapon. They should allow charging after firing, but they really only work well like lasguns-in numbers. DA bolter banner increases their effectiveness dramatically, as does HH 'Fury of the Legion' rule. Sisters of Battle, and Inquisition Acolytes do fine with them, due to their ability to field more of them.
Xenomancers wrote: On modern battlefields this is a weapon that is fielded on light tanks as a main gun - comparable to a 20mm or .78 cal weapon.
Caliber does not necessarily work that way...we have a direct comparison to a .50cal heavy machinegun in 40k, where the HMG is heavier, but has similar strength. That still makes the bolter *really* powerful, but it's not a light tank gun.
Is it worth pointing out that the chaos rhino is a tank, not as heavily armoured as other tanks, and it's gun is a twin linked bolter (even if it is pintle mounted)?
Also, bolters have always been described/ruled as wieldable by (stocky/heroic) humans.
The issue isn't bolters per se, but bolters on Marines. Marines are expensive units that can't be made any cheaper really, that are no better at shooting than Sisters of Battle.
There needs to be something for Marines, and only Marines (including Chaos), using bolt pistols/bolters/storm bolters that makes them slightly better than non-Marine units with bolters.
They used to get "rapid fire" which allowed a stationary Marine to get an extra shot when shooting. Perhaps allowing a stationary Marine to get an additional shot with bolt weapons compared to what others get? That shouldn't be accessible with relentless. Whatever unit it is it has to remain stationary to benefit.
People complaining that marines are overpriced really, really need to have a look at how much a Sister with -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, not ATSKNF, no Chapter tactics, no split squad, no whatever the hell cost.
Ugly Green Trog wrote: The problem with bolters is not to do with math hammer or fluff or ap values or strength.
The problem is about awesomeness. The vast majority of people who play this game are not number crunchers or min maxers, they play for fun and because genetically engineered super warriors from grim dark land are awesome!
Rolling shooting for bolters it does not feel awesome at all :(, it feels weak when you roll the dice. Rapid fire improves things but not by much. It feels like pissing in the sea.
And this is because the bolter is quite good at mowing down normal infantry, but who fields infantry any more? Now it is all about tanks and monstrous creatures and tanks and…
Xenomancers wrote: Its a weapon only a really strong ork nob or a marine could use. (required strength 4) should be in it's profile.
I have a whole army that is making rude gestures towards you now. And incinerating your model collection. And turning you into an arcoflagellant .
Don't sisters get a 6+ invulnerable, meaning that they have a slight chance to survive AP3 / AP2 / AP1 weaponry?
Bolters are fine. It's the standard when it comes to small arms fire. Since it's the standard, it just looks weaker compared to the bolter equivalent in other factions. You could argue that the standard should be the lasgun, considering how the bolter is meant to be a prized weapon in the fluff, but that would mean that IG would be the flagship army, not Space Marines.
As Hybrid mentioned, the problem with bolters is that it's an anti-infantry weapon in a meta where everyone wants monstrous creatures.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: The issue isn't bolters per se, but bolters on Marines. Marines are expensive units that can't be made any cheaper really, that are no better at shooting than Sisters of Battle.
There needs to be something for Marines, and only Marines (including Chaos), using bolt pistols/bolters/storm bolters that makes them slightly better than non-Marine units with bolters.
Why should marines be better at shooting bolters than Sisters?
Okay, give them a rule to make them better at shooting bolter, do not forget to add 5/10 point to the cost of every marine to make up for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Don't sisters get a 6+ invulnerable, meaning that they have a slight chance to survive AP3 / AP2 / AP1 weaponry?
That can be very useful on tanks, but on basic sisters, it is extremely anecdotal.
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: The issue isn't bolters per se, but bolters on Marines. Marines are expensive units that can't be made any cheaper really, that are no better at shooting than Sisters of Battle.
There needs to be something for Marines, and only Marines (including Chaos), using bolt pistols/bolters/storm bolters that makes them slightly better than non-Marine units with bolters.
Why should marines be better at shooting bolters than Sisters? Okay, give them a rule to make them better at shooting bolter, do not forget to add 5/10 point to the cost of every marine to make up for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Don't sisters get a 6+ invulnerable, meaning that they have a slight chance to survive AP3 / AP2 / AP1 weaponry?
That can be very useful on tanks, but on basic sisters, it is extremely anecdotal.
Give Tac marines special issue ammo You'd think the Imperium's shock troopers would have more than one type of ammunition on them. To differentiate them from sternguard though, the tac marines can only take kraken rounds, at 1 ppm.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You'd think the Imperium's shock troopers would have more than one type of ammunition on them.
Well, you would think that the most elite troop of one of the most powerful and influential organization of the Imperium, and likely the wealthiest too, would also have a few extra gimmick, no?
Have boltguns ever been good? As the game has progressed, the damage done by a boltgun has dropped significantly.
To take two typical examples at different times:
1 Ten marines shoot ten orks.
2 Ten marines shoot ten other marine.
Rogue Trader era 1 Two-thirds of the marines hit (BS4), half of which wound (S4 vs T4), and the orks would typically have mesh or flak armour (6+), which would be ignored by the boltgun's save modifier (-1). That'd result in slightly more than 3 dead orks on average.
2 Two-thirds of the marines hit (BS4), two-thirds of which wound (S4 vs T3), and the marines would have power armour (4+), reduced to 5+ by the boltgun. That'd result in slightly more than 2 dead marines on average.
Later on (and leading into Rogue Trader), marines would be buffed to fire twice if stationary, and have their T boosted to 4.
In both cases, you'd also need to take cover into account (reducing damage), and also remember that you could move and fire to the maximum of 24in (increasing damage); with a +1 to hit below 12in (increasing damage). Since armies mostly started between 24 and 30in apart, boltguns would be used from turn 1 onwards.
Given that info, a squad would likely get two or three shots off in six turns, with the lower damage caused by cover early on balanced out by more damage later on. Typically then, you could expect between a quarter and a fifth of boltgun shots to result in an enemy death.
3rd edition era
This simplified things a lot, and de-powered the boltgun hugely.
1 Two-thirds of the marines hit (BS4), half of which wound (S4 vs T4), and the orks would have a 6+ armour save, which would be ignored by the boltgun's AP (5). That'd result in slightly more than 3 dead orks on average.
2 Two-thirds of the marines hit (BS4), half of which wound (S4 vs T4), and the marines would have a 3+ armour save, which the boltgun won't affect. That'd result in 1 dead marine on average.
On the face of it, the basic results look pretty similar; with the marines looking considerably tougher. The cover rules have changed to provide an unmodifiable save of 5+ for foliage etc. Assuming the orks have even one turn in cover, they benefit a great deal from this.
In addition, range has been reduced to 12in if you move, or 24in if you stand still. With armies still starting between 24in and 30in apart, that means relying on your opponent moving towards you if you want to shoot them in first turn; so the first boltgun casualties aren't going to happen until turn 2 at the earliest (all other things being equal). In addition, if the marines move to achieve their objective, that's a further turn they're unlikely to be firing. If you stay still, you do get two shots at 12in.
Given that info, a squad would be lucky to get three shots off in six turns (decreased damage), with lower damage potentially caused by cover (decreased damage). You do have the potential to double-tap later on, but this is less likely than previously as marines could double tap at full range back in RT (slightly reduced damage). Typically then, you would expect to need more boltgun shots to result in an enemy death than previously.
4th, 5th and 6th editions changed to improve the general rapid fire rules, which gave the boltgun a slight boost, but its stats are, if anything, slightly worse than in late RT – no bonus to hit at close range, the AP system is a bell curve which puts AP5 on the wrong side of effective, and marines now can't fire twice at full range.
TL;DR Despite their stats remaining nigh-identical, boltguns have got worse as the game has gone on, owing to a creeping improvement in survivability (increases in toughness, armour and light damage-ignoring special rules), and a move away from infantry-based gaming.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: You'd think the Imperium's shock troopers would have more than one type of ammunition on them.
Well, you would think that the most elite troop of one of the most powerful and influential organization of the Imperium, and likely the wealthiest too, would also have a few extra gimmick, no?
Well, the Church isn't meant to have an army, is it? That said, I am sure there is a faithful staff member of an armory who would be willing to donate to the Church
Seeing a return of anti-psyker ammo would be nice. That was the sister's gimmick in the previous codex, iirc.
Which is why they have super-hyper-elite forces only. Since they could not have more soldiers, get them the best gear EVAR!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Seeing a return of anti-psyker ammo would be nice. That was the sister's gimmick in the previous codex, iirc.
I do not think Sisters need anti-psyker ammo any more than they need anti-mutant ammo or anti-xenos ammo. Certainly they hate those as much as they hate psykers .
Which is why they have super-hyper-elite forces only. Since they could not have more soldiers, get them the best gear EVAR!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Seeing a return of anti-psyker ammo would be nice. That was the sister's gimmick in the previous codex, iirc.
I do not think Sisters need anti-psyker ammo any more than they need anti-mutant ammo or anti-xenos ammo. Certainly they hate those as much as they hate psykers .
Yeah, except as an army of the Church, their primary role is to fight cases of extreme heresy.
Heretics are usually rogue psykers. Mutants tend to die to bolt rounds and fire like everything else.
Though an army of sternguard equivalents would be interesting. Pricey though.
Psykers are really rare, and they are usually not linked to organized heresy. Many of the most influential heretics are actually apostates, former Ecclesiarchy members.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Though an army of sternguard equivalents would be interesting. Pricey though.
I have always thought Celestian should receive artificer armor standard, and get all of their weapons master-crafted.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: People complaining that marines are overpriced really, really need to have a look at how much a Sister with -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, not ATSKNF, no Chapter tactics, no split squad, no whatever the hell cost.
Ugly Green Trog wrote: The problem with bolters is not to do with math hammer or fluff or ap values or strength.
The problem is about awesomeness. The vast majority of people who play this game are not number crunchers or min maxers, they play for fun and because genetically engineered super warriors from grim dark land are awesome!
Rolling shooting for bolters it does not feel awesome at all :(, it feels weak when you roll the dice. Rapid fire improves things but not by much. It feels like pissing in the sea.
And this is because the bolter is quite good at mowing down normal infantry, but who fields infantry any more? Now it is all about tanks and monstrous creatures and tanks and…
Xenomancers wrote: Its a weapon only a really strong ork nob or a marine could use. (required strength 4) should be in it's profile.
I have a whole army that is making rude gestures towards you now. And incinerating your model collection. And turning you into an arcoflagellant .
You are very wrong about most people that play this game. Most are number crunchers win at all costs kinds of players. On another point, I agree playing genetically engineered super warriors from a dark land is awesome - it's slightly less awesome when your super warriors can't even route a squad of xenos out of cover because they are dead in the time it took to kill 2-3 guardians. There is nothing super about marines. They are overpriced units that have a bunch of moderately better stats that don't mater except bs 4 with a crap weapon and a 3+ save which is made almost completely useless by 4+ cover and the prevalence of mass AP2 and AP3 shooting. This leaves you 3 options for their use and they are all bad. You can put them in a drop pod in which specialist units will perform better. You can put them in a rhino and shove them into someone face for 1 round of rapid fire before being annihilated in 1 turn or ignored by virtue of not being a threat. Or you can run a min squad of 5 with a laz cannon and scrape paint off tanks all day or bounce shots off 3+ invo saves. The bolter being useless is mostly to be blamed here. If bolters were halfway decent for their cost - shoving them at the enemy might actually be worth something. Hiding them in cover might be worth something because they would be worth something later in games with heavy fire reduced through attrition. As it is right now. They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
Xenomancers wrote: They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
Mhmm.
Totally.
The absolute worst.
There is not a unit I can even dream of that is worse off than a tactical marine. It must be absolutely terrible to have half a dozen USRs, solid transport options, and the ability to split your squad.
Literally the worst thing in the game, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know how marine players carry on. What a burden.
Xenomancers wrote: They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
Mhmm.
Totally.
The absolute worst.
There is not a unit I can even dream of that is worse off than a tactical marine. It must be absolutely terrible to have half a dozen USRs, solid transport options, and the ability to split your squad.
Literally the worst thing in the game, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know how marine players carry on. What a burden.
There was a thread closed a few days ago on this very topic. It might be best to avoid it, especially since it is already starting so...poorly, and from the same side.
I think that it can be said bolters were never "good". Str 4 ap 5 doesn't threaten any troops with rapid fire, and most units that carry them are too expensive to use them well.
Sisters at least have had acts of faith to make them rending, and are, oddly enough, the best bolter users in the game.
Xenomancers wrote: They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
Mhmm.
Totally.
The absolute worst.
There is not a unit I can even dream of that is worse off than a tactical marine. It must be absolutely terrible to have half a dozen USRs, solid transport options, and the ability to split your squad.
Literally the worst thing in the game, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know how marine players carry on. What a burden.
Xenomancers wrote: They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
Mhmm.
Totally.
The absolute worst.
There is not a unit I can even dream of that is worse off than a tactical marine. It must be absolutely terrible to have half a dozen USRs, solid transport options, and the ability to split your squad.
Literally the worst thing in the game, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know how marine players carry on. What a burden.
Not the worst, but frustratingly close, because most of the USRs don't matter.
Xenomancers wrote: They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
Mhmm.
Totally.
The absolute worst.
There is not a unit I can even dream of that is worse off than a tactical marine. It must be absolutely terrible to have half a dozen USRs, solid transport options, and the ability to split your squad.
Literally the worst thing in the game, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know how marine players carry on. What a burden.
If by solid transports you mean the weakest...you've got that right. 11/11/10 profile with a storm bolter or a twin linked heavy? Both razors and rhinos are terrible. Compare to a devilish 12/12/10 2 heavies, wave serpent 12/12/10 3 heavies, chimera 12/10/10 2 heavies (it's an abolute joke) ATSKNF is 1 rule - not a dozen I guess by a dozen you meant 2? it hurts you just as often as it helps you - sometimes you just want you squad to get overrun so you can shoot whats killing you. Combat squads is actually useless - it lowers the squads destructive ability by lowering it's heavy weapon count per model.(again a useless rule that helps not on the battlefield. sounds cool though "split squads? sounds strong") Substitute the rule and allow squads to take 2 specials or 2 heavies of your choice and by gosh you'd never see a combat squad. Also a drop pod is not a transport - it's just adds a special deepstrike to the squad and annoys people by blocking LOS and stuff (it is solid though so m maybe you were referring to pods being solid - you can't possibly be referring to marines inferior rhino pattern transports.) Again I was blaming all of tacs short comings on the bolter. None of this would matter (inferior tanks, less special weapons per model whilst being outnumbered, special rules that don't help much and often hurt you) If bolters could actually kill something efficiently. They can't. So we don't use tacs - so theres almost no need for our inferior transports ether. We've moved on to better things. To bad the most elite solider in the imperium are relegated to the dust bin for the most part.
yeahhhhhh bolters still are not as bad as people keep saying it is. nor is armor3. (bolters just dont have the razzle dazzle effect that keeps people placated like all the other races. )
You can also keep forgetting that a rhino costs less than half of a Dfish.
ATSKNF used to be better when you could choose to fail (that was 5th right?) but yeah not aaassss useful but its better than getting sweaped off the board when you lose an assault against an assault unit.
All of that to say that they're THE WORST UNIT TO HAVE EVER BEEN A UNIT!!!!11!!1!!! Right?
I mean, I can't possibly think of a unit that is worse off than a Tac marine. There must be literally zero.
Or maybe you'd like to reframe your argument that Tacs aren't great, rather than caps locking WORST UNIT.
I'm not here for a serious discussion about bolters or tacs, I'm just making fun of people who use ridiculous hyperbole.
Sure, Tacs/bolters need help, but claiming they're the WORST UNIT is comically absurd and does nothing to make any of your arguments seem any stronger.
Blacksails wrote: All of that to say that they're THE WORST UNIT TO HAVE EVER BEEN A UNIT!!!!11!!1!!! Right?
I mean, I can't possibly think of a unit that is worse off than a Tac marine. There must be literally zero.
Or maybe you'd like to reframe your argument that Tacs aren't great, rather than caps locking WORST UNIT.
I'm not here for a serious discussion about bolters or tacs, I'm just making fun of people who use ridiculous hyperbole.
Sure, Tacs/bolters need help, but claiming they're the WORST UNIT is comically absurd and does nothing to make any of your arguments seem any stronger.
It's not hard to figure how they are the worst. For their cost they deal significantly less damage than other units of comparable price and scope.
Costing more and doing less = the worst. Name me a unit that under performs tacticals for the price please. Explain why they are bad.
Yeah, I'll just leave you alone and let you believe that Tacs are quite literally, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the single absolute worst unit in the game.
i showed you the calculations how much damage they do to MEQs, and for there points will do a feth less wounds than almost anything in return even with orders.
They are literally there to sit on an objective hold or die.
Blacksails wrote: Yeah, I'll just leave you alone and let you believe that Tacs are quite literally, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the single absolute worst unit in the game.
Semantics.
You might be able to find a worse troop choice, but can you find a worse troop choice that gets taken commonly?
For some reason, people have a blind spot where tactical marines are concerned, believing them to over perform.
I have agreed to switch out my standard list with tacticals for a game this weekend, and was given a good strategy to employ. We will see how they perform, but numbers wise it doesn't look good. They just don't dish out enough damage for the points, and cover really makes horde troops nearly as survivable (compare an ork in cover to a marine and, point for point, it out performs).
But the discussion is about bolters. There is 1 weapon weaker than bolters, the lasgun.
So yeah.
Pretty bad for a weapon on the most expensive troop in the game.
Desu,
IG get orders which make them superior, cost less and can be put into cover, and get special weapons.
Point for point, I doubt IG are bad. Maybe not Ork good, but they are a pretty good choice.
Rhinos used to be good, I don't see them taken as much. This could be because a lot of armor choices aren't very good in their codexes, so the AT weapons get pointed at them and they die, or because they can be ignored since they and tacticals don't do enough damage. It's hard to tell.
Desubot wrote: yeahhhhhh bolters still are not as bad as people keep saying it is. nor is armor3. (bolters just dont have the razzle dazzle effect that keeps people placated like all the other races. )
You can also keep forgetting that a rhino costs less than half of a Dfish.
ATSKNF used to be better when you could choose to fail (that was 5th right?) but yeah not aaassss useful but its better than getting sweaped off the board when you lose an assault against an assault unit.
Rhino can't jink - has smoke for 1 turn of jink(no upgrades to improve it). Can't move 12 and shoot normally - has approx 1/3th the firepower - and has less armor. Oh but on a 6 it can repair a hull point so it can continue being useless (can't forget to leave out rules that almost never help you.)
Desubot wrote: yeahhhhhh bolters still are not as bad as people keep saying it is. nor is armor3. (bolters just dont have the razzle dazzle effect that keeps people placated like all the other races. )
You can also keep forgetting that a rhino costs less than half of a Dfish.
ATSKNF used to be better when you could choose to fail (that was 5th right?) but yeah not aaassss useful but its better than getting sweaped off the board when you lose an assault against an assault unit.
Rhino can't jink - has smoke for 1 turn of jink(no upgrades to improve it). Can't move 12 and shoot normally - has approx 1/3th the firepower - and has less armor. Oh but on a 6 it can repair a hull point so it can continue being useless (can't forget to leave out rules that almost never help you.)
cover still exists and not everything is tau or wave serpents. Rhinos come with storm bolters. its not going to kill all the time but its a cherry on top for a cheap fethin vehicle that lets you move up 18" T1 which is incredibly important for marines.
Desubot wrote: yeahhhhhh bolters still are not as bad as people keep saying it is. nor is armor3. (bolters just dont have the razzle dazzle effect that keeps people placated like all the other races. )
You can also keep forgetting that a rhino costs less than half of a Dfish.
ATSKNF used to be better when you could choose to fail (that was 5th right?) but yeah not aaassss useful but its better than getting sweaped off the board when you lose an assault against an assault unit.
Rhino can't jink - has smoke for 1 turn of jink(no upgrades to improve it). Can't move 12 and shoot normally - has approx 1/3th the firepower - and has less armor. Oh but on a 6 it can repair a hull point so it can continue being useless (can't forget to leave out rules that almost never help you.)
cover still exists and not everything is tau or wave serpents.
Chimeras have better offensive output
De transports are better
Daemons don't have them
Necron transports are absurd and should not be spoken of
Chimeras also cost a bit more for that offensive power.
I love toasting DE transports with Drop ironclads with double HF people forget the noescape rule lol.
Necrons.....yeah tis silly.
But yeah i think you are right the worst could possibility be orks.
Ogyrns. For 43 point what do you get? A WS:4 T:5 model with a 5+ armor save and 12" S: 5 AP- gun. Sure, they have three wounds but a single demolisher blast can wipe them out. Hell, massed bolter fire can wipe them out.
Xenomancers wrote: s it is right now. They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
You are delusional. Try Celestians.
Did you notice I play an army where pretty much all my troops have the same wargear, a largely inferior profile and less interesting special rules for almost the same cost as marines?
Delusional marine player frustrated that his army is not the best on every regard is delusional.
Desubot wrote: Single worse unit? Try IG infantry squad.
i showed you the calculations how much damage they do to MEQs, and for there points will do a feth less wounds than almost anything in return even with orders.
They are literally there to sit on an objective hold or die.
Never turns out that way on the game table. IG squads job is to sit in cover and shoot heavy guns. Give a 10 man a laz and plasma and they will kill or cripple a marine squad before it gets in range to rapid fire - even then they will just go to ground in cover and the exposed marine squad gets pie plated and annihilated by the other half of the marines points in another 10 man with a laz and a plasma - not needing to be the aggressor is a huge part of why IG platoons are superior to tacs.
TheCustomLime wrote: Ogyrns. For 43 point what do you get? A WS:4 T:5 model with a 5+ armor save and 12" S: 5 AP- gun. Sure, they have three wounds but a single demolisher blast can wipe them out. Hell, massed bolter fire can wipe them out.
Actually, I saw a deathstar Ogryn unit with Azrael attached that did surprisingly well.
Desubot wrote: Single worse unit? Try IG infantry squad.
i showed you the calculations how much damage they do to MEQs, and for there points will do a feth less wounds than almost anything in return even with orders.
They are literally there to sit on an objective hold or die.
Never turns out that way on the game table. IG squads job is to sit in cover and shoot heavy guns. Give a 10 man a laz and plasma and they will kill or cripple a marine squad before it gets in range to rapid fire - even then they will just go to ground in cover and the exposed marine squad gets pie plated and annihilated by the other half of the marines points in another 10 man with a laz and a plasma - not needing to be the aggressor is a huge part of why IG platoons are superior to tacs.
They have a 50% chance to miss off the bat, they will kill possibly 1 marine with a plasma or a lascannon. unless you are somehow running 2man marine squads they are not getting crippled.
and even then a 4man will more than likely sweap guardsman in the following charge.
And sure an entire 300+ platoon and more in support would look amazaballs compared to a lowly minimum 70 point tactical squad anytime.
Xenomancers wrote: s it is right now. They are with out a doubt in my mind - THE WORST UNIT that can be fielded on a 40 k tabletop.
You are delusional. Try Celestians.
Did you notice I play an army where pretty much all my troops have the same wargear, a largely inferior profile and less interesting special rules for almost the same cost as marines?
Delusional marine player frustrated that his army is not the best on every regard is delusional.
It's generally agreed that sisters are better than tacs. So you really aren't coming from a strong position here. Cost less have same gun with better special rules and better transports. I'll be honest I don't know a lot about sisters in this edition. In previous editions the whole army could have a laz cannon for 1 turn or some other shenanigans. 6++ is another thing while costing less? lol.
Oh, so what you're saying is that running a unit up to a heavily armed squad in cover will get the assaulting unit killed? Do tell.
And to elaborate on my point as to why Marines aren't the worst unit for cost Ogryns only cost 2 pts less than a Hammernator. Hammernators have a 3+ invuln, a 2+ save, pretty much the same WS, higher leadership, better strength and a better AP. The only thing Ogryns have over Hammernators is 2 more wounds, one more attack and a +1 WS/S/T. Which do not amount to much since they have crappy saves and a one point difference in weapon skill isn't much most of the time.
Bolters are kind of lame. They've always been kind of lame. S:4 is weaksauce against most targets and AP:5 is often meaningless. I'd make them Assault 3 and shred if you don't want to diddle around with the S/AP.
TheCustomLime wrote: Oh, so what you're saying is that running a unit up to a heavily armed squad in cover will get the assaulting unit killed? Do tell.
And to elaborate on my point as to why Marines aren't the worst unit for cost Ogryns only cost 2 pts less than a Hammernator. Hammernators have a 3+ invuln, a 2+ save, pretty much the same WS, higher leadership, better strength and a better AP. The only thing Ogryns have over Hammernators is 2 more wounds, one more attack and a +1 WS/S/T. Which do not amount to much since they have crappy saves and a one point difference in weapon skill isn't much most of the time.
Orgyns have 3 wounds and strong guns. I'd take them over a tac squad all day. Put Orgyns up against a tac squad and see what happens. Marines lose - thats what happens.
Orgyns have 3 wounds and strong guns. I'd take them over a tac squad all day. Put Orgyns up against a tac squad and see what happens. Marines lose - thats what happens.
Actually, they don't.
Ogryns are markedly less survivable than tactical marines, and will also be out-ranged.
It takes 27 bolter shots to kill 3 marines (42pts)
It takes half that amount to kill an Ogryn (40pts)
Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.
TheCustomLime wrote: Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.
While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point
TheCustomLime wrote: Oh, so what you're saying is that running a unit up to a heavily armed squad in cover will get the assaulting unit killed? Do tell.
And to elaborate on my point as to why Marines aren't the worst unit for cost Ogryns only cost 2 pts less than a Hammernator. Hammernators have a 3+ invuln, a 2+ save, pretty much the same WS, higher leadership, better strength and a better AP. The only thing Ogryns have over Hammernators is 2 more wounds, one more attack and a +1 WS/S/T. Which do not amount to much since they have crappy saves and a one point difference in weapon skill isn't much most of the time.
Orgyns have 3 wounds and strong guns. I'd take them over a tac squad all day. Put Orgyns up against a tac squad and see what happens. Marines lose - thats what happens.
mm yeah soo a 3man ogryns squad will shoot 9 hit 4.5 do 3 wounds and 1 marine will die for a wopping 130 points for that 1 wound 5 man marine at that range will shoot 10 hot 6.66 do 2.22 wounds and they will all go through for a discount price of 31.5 wounds per point
and in assault it would of been ogryns 10 attacks 5 hits 3.33 wounds 1.11 unsaved for 117 points per kill (so they are a little better in assault) as apossed to marines who will attack 5 hit 3.33 wound 1.11 and .74 unsaved for a 94.5 point per kill.
il still put my money on the marines
(im doing direct comparison rather than a how many bolters does it take calculation)
To be fair, it's kind of odd to call a unit the worst unit in 40k for points but only allow troops choices for comparison. But, alright, I'll go with troops choices.
I put it to you that Conscripts are crappy units for their cost. While they may seem cheap at 3ppm they are overpriced in comparison to their infantry squad counterparts. For two more points over a conscript you get: +1 WS/BS, +2 LD and a Sergeant that bumps it up to a +3 LD. You don't even pay extra points for the Sarge. You also get the ability to buy special weapons, heavy weapons, krak grenades, a Bolter (For only 1 point!), melta bombs and you can take a Chimera/Taurox. I dunno, I don't see why anyone would take Conscripts over more infantry squads unless their obscenely spacious troops slots were all filled up and they wanted moar Guardsman. If Chenkov were still kicking it I'd see their use but as it stands? Meh.
TheCustomLime wrote: Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.
While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point
TheCustomLime wrote: Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.
While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point
Wyches.
They are not great for sure.
its nice that they can hold up a daemon prince in CC for a few turns.
TheCustomLime wrote: Xenomancer said that for cost Tactical marines are the worst unit in 40k. I argue that Ogryns are worse in terms of how effective they are for their points.
While you are technically correct (Futurama has taught me this is the best kind) I think we all know that troop choices was the context of the point
Wyches.
They are not great for sure.
its nice that they can hold up a daemon prince in CC for a few turns.
Not really, I want the daemon prince to hit a squad and break it. Neither choice are great for that though.
Wyches are worse, but they are never taken anymore (sadly). Marines are still a common part of army lists.
Why is it weird to compare troop choices? You have to take 2 of them unless unbound, HQ is the only slot with this requirement as well unless formations. They are also the iconic unit for the army, at least often (some armies...no, but many yes). This makes them in a weird position.
Its not different than how, in Warmachine, warcasters get compared so much more than jacks, beasts, or anything else.
There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.
Xenomancers wrote: There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.
So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?
Xenomancers wrote: There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.
So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?
No in an actual game setting. Where Ogyrns start the battle in cover and marines are forced to come within 12 inches to do real damage. Ogryns will ether draw fire whilst losing very little or charge the marine squad untouched and win the fight. Rippers gun are rending too are they not?
Xenomancers wrote: There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.
So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?
No in an actual game setting. Where Ogyrns start the battle in cover and marines are forced to come within 12 inches to do real damage. Ogryns will ether draw fire whilst losing very little or charge the marine squad untouched and win the fight. Rippers gun are rending too are they not?
Why in the world would marines need to go up within 12" of an ogryn squad if we are going to be practical about this.
secondly no rippers are not rending. just ST5 assault 3 12"
Xenomancers wrote: There are some match ups that really favor ogryns. Like anything str 3 in assault. Not saying they are a great unit. Never seen a IG player use them - not ever. I play a lot of IG too. T5 3w though is more of a unit that requires an invo save bubble to really be used effectively.
So you are saying that marines will not lose to ogryns, contradicting your other statement?
No in an actual game setting. Where Ogyrns start the battle in cover and marines are forced to come within 12 inches to do real damage. Ogryns will ether draw fire whilst losing very little or charge the marine squad untouched and win the fight. Rippers gun are rending too are they not?
If they're sitting in cover in the backfield, they're not doing their primary job. If they're crossing the field to charge your marines, you can probably cut them to ribbons with ease before they get into anything.
Each one costs as much as 8 guardsmen, but is only effectively six times resilient against bolters, meaning your bolters are more cost effective shooting at Ogryns than at guardsmen. In regards to shooting, 40pts of guardsmen at 12" will average 0.88 wounds with lasguns against Marines, while 40pts of Ogryn will average 0.33 wounds against marines with a Ripper gun.
Likewise, lets look at close combat, 40pts of Guardsmen charging into Marines (ignoring marines getting overwatch and striking first) inflict 0.88 wounds, while an Ogryn getting off a charge (where they are at their most effective, and again ignoring overwatch and the marines striking first) will only inflict 0.66 wounds between 4 attack and a Hammer of Wrath hit. The Guardsmen are better in both shooting and CC and resiliency point for point, the only advantage the Ogryn has is being able to both shoot and assault.
However, Ogryns are slow, they take a lot of time to get anywhere, their save might as well not exist, and they require an HQ to babysit them of the first time they lose someone it's a fallback test on LD7 (or 6 if it was the Bone'ead).
Vaktathi wrote: Even 10 million really would be too small. We're talking a galaxy of between 200-400 billion star systems. GW finally wizened up in 2009 and at least gave relatively realistic (if vague) numbers for the Imperial Guard at "billions" of regiments, each containing thousands of troops. That's a force that can conceivable operate on such a scale. Even if we assume the low end estimate of systems a 200 billion, and assume the Imperium of Man only holds about 1% of those, that's two billion star systems. Even with ten million marines, you're talking a single marine per two hundred star star systems, a single Chapter per two million star systems. That's still spread so thin as to simply be nonexistent, not even simply mythical or legendary.
Digging up a discussion from several pages back just to respond:
The Imperium is very consistently portrayed as containing 1 million planets, with 1 Marine per planet (1000 chapters of 1000 Marines).
That is not nearly as little as I see people commonly spout without thinking first. Let's take a look.
The majority of the planets in the Imperium will be behind the 'front lines' or otherwise untheatened. They will sometimes get rebellions and the like, but nothing the PDF and/or Guard can't handle. No need to even bother with Marines for that in most cases.
Let's make an assumption that 10% of the Imperium's planets are in warzones, or as close to warzones as to make them relevant from a short-term military standpoint. Now you have one hundred thousand planets. This might actually be generous - it's possible that this number is considerably lower.
Of these, lets say 5% - one in twenty - are warzones where the Marines decide to show up. That's 5000 planets where the Astartes show up.
Now, that means that 1000000/5000=200, or that on average two full companies of Marines are deployed in each warzone (and two companies can and do make a significant difference), even if they show up in as many as one in twenty warzones!
That does not sound that mythically rare, now does it? Rare for sure, and legendary to the common imperial citizen (who is unlikely to be on one of the war-torn worlds to begin with), but not that uncommon on a strategic level.
200 super-elite post-human soldiers that can smash strongpoints in the enemy line, target and dismantle commanders and important structures, cut off retreat paths and so on.
Martel732 wrote: After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.
After a long, draw out discussion, I STILL disagree with that assertion. Loved bolters in 1st and 2nd edition. Only a handful of basic weapons were better and they were far more rare.
Martel732 wrote: After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.
After a long, draw out discussion, I STILL disagree with that assertion. Loved bolters in 1st and 2nd edition. Only a handful of basic weapons were better and they were far more rare.
Seriously? In a game with warp spiders, chaos terminators, lists with 200+hormaguants, sonic blasters, blast masters, bivores, pulsa rokkits, and shuriken catapults, you really think the bolter was good in 2nd edition? That's straight up insane. More rare? I faced lists with 30 sonic blasters! They had two sustained fire dice! My marines were all dead in 2 turns! What are you talking about?
Martel732 wrote: After a long, drawn out thread, the answer is still "no", bolters were never any good compared to other weapons in the game.
After a long, draw out discussion, I STILL disagree with that assertion. Loved bolters in 1st and 2nd edition. Only a handful of basic weapons were better and they were far more rare.
Seriously? In a game with warp spiders, chaos terminators, lists with 200+hormaguants, sonic blasters, blast masters, bivores, pulsa rokkits, and shuriken catapults, you really think the bolter was good in 2nd edition? That's straight up insane. More rare? I faced lists with 30 sonic blasters! They had two sustained fire dice! My marines were all dead in 2 turns! What are you talking about?
The only basic weapon on your list is the shuriken catapult.
Do I think bolters are better than specialized weaponry used by elite army troops like warp spiders, aritllery like pulsa rockets, or the ability to get enormous numbers of guys in a skirmish game ala gaunts, no? But that's not really the question. Were bolters good when judged against other weapons of it's class (basic weapons used by core troops)? Absolutely. Only the Shuriken catapult was better. In 1st and 2nd Bolters were an excellent weapon when judged against other weapons of the same type. Any other comparison would make little to no sense.
The bolter wasn't good because it couldn't affect the outcome of a game in 2nd in any meaningful way because of those other weapons. Comparing it to basic weapons is meaningless in a game where no one who was any good used basic weapons. Except the marines, of course, who were forced to. So, no, bolters were not good in practice. They were actually completely awful. It makes perfect sense to compare the bolter to what the other armies actually fielded. Which weren't basic weapons unless your opponent was brain dead.
Martel732 wrote: The bolter wasn't good because it couldn't affect the outcome of a game in 2nd in any meaningful way because of those other weapons. Comparing it to basic weapons is meaningless in a game where no one who was any good used basic weapons. Except the marines, of course, who were forced to.
You are, again, taking your personal experiences and stating them as facts. The extreme play you keep citing never happened in any meta I played in and I played from the end of Rogue Trader all through 2nd edition. Not everyone used extreme builds. When balanced builds are the rule of the day, bolters did just fine. It didn't stop Space Marines from being an overpriced choice, but the weapon was solid. Marines weren't the only ones to use them. Orks used bolters and I used them to deadly effect in many games. If your conclusion is that Space Marines sucked in 2nd edition, I would give it to you. They were seriously over-priced for what they did. But bolters? Pure awesomeness.
Martel732 wrote: The bolter wasn't good because it couldn't affect the outcome of a game in 2nd in any meaningful way because of those other weapons. Comparing it to basic weapons is meaningless in a game where no one who was any good used basic weapons. Except the marines, of course, who were forced to.
You are, again, taking your personal experiences and stating them as facts. The extreme play you keep citing never happened in any meta I played in and I played from the end of Rogue Trader all through 2nd edition. Not everyone used extreme builds. When balanced builds are the rule of the day, bolters did just fine. It didn't stop Space Marines from being an overpriced choice, but the weapon was solid. Marines weren't the only ones to use them. Orks used bolters and I used them to deadly effect in many games. If your conclusion is that Space Marines sucked in 2nd edition, I would give it to you. They were seriously over-priced for what they did. But bolters? Pure awesomeness.
It's not extreme play. It's what anyone with half a brain cell would have done with the 2nd ed Chaos Marine codex. 6 pt hormagaunts? Yes, please. I never saw bolters save Orks from Eldar, sonic blaster chaos marines or 200+ hormagaunts. If it can't run with the big boys, it's a bad weapon.
"stating them as facts"
Those lists existed and were legal. How is that not factual? Sure, if you played with a Care Bear group, I guess the bolter might have been useful, but against people that could analyze what worked well in 2nd, it was useless. Don't forget the negatives to hit against fast moving Tyranids. Such garbage.
" never happened in any meta I played in "
Doesn't make boltguns good in the final analysis of 2nd edition. Because what you call "extreme lists" were legal and common.
I might have enjoyed a continued discussion. But since you're being incredibly rude, by implying that I am stupid and a "care bear" for not playing the game the same way you do. I'm done with conversing with you.
Xenomancers wrote: It's generally agreed that sisters are better than tacs.
Generally agreed by you, or what?
Xenomancers wrote: Cost less have same gun with better special rules and better transports.
Better special rules? No. Better transport? Do you mean paying 5 points more for the very same rhino except with a 6++ is better? No drop pod is better? The Razorback-like Immolator, that has just less weapon options (and, incidentally, pays for the same 6++) is better?
Xenomancers wrote: I'll be honest I don't know a lot about sisters in this edition.
Yeah, I can see that. If you do not know, why do you pretend they are superior? I am sure this is why you are the only one on this thread saying tacs are the worst unit, while everyone points at you and laugh. You have no idea what other armies' units are.
Xenomancers wrote: In previous editions the whole army could have a laz cannon for 1 turn or some other shenanigans.
There is just no way to get a lascannon in the army, and there never was. So, no.
When is the 6++ going to be useful? Not against any weapon that has AP4 or more. Not when in ANY kind of cover. If Sisters are in close combat, they are SO MUCH WORSE than marines there it makes no difference. So, basically, you hardly ever roll the 6++. And when you does, it is still a microscopic help. T4, though, is going to make the difference for every weapon with a strength of less than 6.
I think you would need to actually learn the rules and point costs of other armies, and maybe even play them, to get a less biased point of view. Maybe you are loosing because you just do not play that well?
SoB have their advantages, though. They die like chumps to Wave Serpents just as fast as Marines do, but they at least are marginally cheaper and have marginally more firepower per point...
Ashiraya wrote: SoB have their advantages, though. They die like chumps to Wave Serpents just as fast as Marines do, but they at least are marginally cheaper and have marginally more firepower per point...
...Yeah, they are not that good either, really.
To be fair, their codex is very old, relatively speaking, isn't it? Point costs have dropped quite a bit by and large for most units.
I'll be the first to admit I'm very bad at keeping track of these things.
Death Korps Engineers are probably the worst unit.
Shotguns and carapace armor, 10 guys in a slot at best, can only take the Hades Drill that's been nerfed horribly, and they become elite if you take a Drill, yeah, excuse me if I don't shed tears for the powered armored gorillas.
Ashiraya wrote: but they at least are marginally cheaper and have marginally more firepower per point...
Seeing just how much they loose, for so few points… not worth it.
Akiasura wrote: To be fair, their codex is very old, relatively speaking, isn't it?
No. It was released October 2013. That is not really old by GW standards. For reference, Dark Eldar had to wait for 12 years.
I wouldn't call what they got a codex, but considering the rapid release date, a year old is old nowadays.
I did think it was back in 2012 though.
I'm well aware of their old release schedule.
I personally think the bolter is what it is. Basic. It isn't really any weaker than most other "basic" weapons. S4 AP5 is more or less middle of the road. No one else gets that big of an advantage over Tac Marines weapon wise when you compare what other equipment they carry. With the complaint being that marines can't take out vehicles or MCs from shooting, I have to say I agree they can't; however, they CAN take them out in CC. What about Krak grenades? S6 AP4 right? Can't those be used against MCs and vehicles (admittedly in CC while lobbing one in on the charge). I'm not saying it will by pass armour saves, or cause an explodes result on the damage chart, but it will make a dent. I've had chaos space marines nuke a riptide in CC with krak grenades before. Remember the points for a marine are being payed for more than just the bolter. Look at all their gear as well, not just the one that stands out the most. Just my two cents.
My humble grey hunters think otherwise, after they took down a fresh, on flying, daemon prince, a complete squad of bloodletters and a complete squad of pink horrors, prove the effectiveness of the bolter (they where only 7 grey hunters, they lose 2 plasma hunters and the wg with the combiplasma)
My sternguard (with only one heavy flamer and iron hands CT) show their value too, killing a squad of 5 khorne hounds, one squad of daemonettes and other squad of bloodletters.
I was figthing a daemon factory, practically the rapid fire bolters keep on the knees the daemon army (i was running a combination of thunderwolve calvary and SM allies with sternguards and sniper scouts).
My calvary took down the ugly things (one soulgrinder and several squads of pink horrors and a bloodthisters) and my infantry took down everything else.
So, i would say: bolter for the win
Nocturus wrote: I personally think the bolter is what it is. Basic. It isn't really any weaker than most other "basic" weapons. S4 AP5 is more or less middle of the road. No one else gets that big of an advantage over Tac Marines weapon wise when you compare what other equipment they carry. With the complaint being that marines can't take out vehicles or MCs from shooting, I have to say I agree they can't; however, they CAN take them out in CC. What about Krak grenades? S6 AP4 right? Can't those be used against MCs and vehicles (admittedly in CC while lobbing one in on the charge). I'm not saying it will by pass armour saves, or cause an explodes result on the damage chart, but it will make a dent. I've had chaos space marines nuke a riptide in CC with krak grenades before. Remember the points for a marine are being payed for more than just the bolter. Look at all their gear as well, not just the one that stands out the most. Just my two cents.
I agree they are not the only troop to carry krak grenades. Ok, lets do a comparison using the codexes I have available to me right now on just basic troops no upgrades. All modifications will be based upon the Tac marine itself since most people know its points and stats:
Fire Warrior: -2WS -1BS -1S -1T -2I -1Ld +1Sv / Basic Weapon: Pulse Rifle +1S +6" range / No assault Grenades, no krak grenades, +defensive grenades / Special rules: +Supporting Fire, -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point cost -5
Ork Boy: -2BS -1S -2I +1A -2Ld +3Sv / Basic Weapon: Slugga +1 AP -12" Range, Gains free CC weapon / No assault Grenades, no krak grenades / Special rules: +'Ere We GO!, +Furious Charge, +Mob Rule, -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point Cost -8
Tempestus Scion: -1WS -1S -1T -1I - 1Ld +1Sv / Basic Weapon: Hot-Shot Lasgun -1S -2AP -6" Range / Special rules: +Deep Strike, +Move Through Cover, -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point Cost -2
Battle Sister: -1WS -1S -1T -1I / Basic Weapon: Bolter / Special Rules: +Act of Faith, +Shield of Faith, -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point Cost -2
Kroot: -1BS -1S -1T -1I -1Ld / Basic Weapon: Kroot Rifle -1AP / No Grenades / Special Rules: +Infiltrate, +Move Through Cover, +Stealth (Forests), -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point Cost -8
Chaos Space Marine: Identical Except - Special Rules: -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point Cost -1
Chaos Cultist: -1WS -1BS -1S -1T -1I -1Ld +3Sv / Basic Weapon: Autopistol -1S NO AP, Gains Free CC weapon / No Grenades / Special Rules: -ATSKNF, -Chapter Tactics, - Combat Squads / Point Cost -10
Now using those as some basic examples. How does the Tac Marine compare to them? His stats are better than all of them with the exception of the CSM, who is only 1 point cheaper and loses all of the special abilities. This is why I don't see a problem with the bolter. Yes, it is basic, but the delivery system is elite. So if we say the Tac marine is priced wrong based upon the bolter alone, then all of these are wrong, in which case, there isn't any reason to complain because we're all in the same boat!
Bobthehero wrote: The Scion will match the SM on wound inflicted to on another, but its 2 pts cheap, just saying
Although he's just bad agaisnt everything else, with the price he pays for AP 3...
I can see that. I'm not a math hammer guy, so please enlighten us using two scenarios. One with SM going first one with the scions going first, both starting 24 inches apart. 4 regular un upgraded guys +sergeant for both. Who wins? I'm curious how the numbers crunch out.
Bobthehero wrote: The Scion will match the SM on wound inflicted to on another, but its 2 pts cheap, just saying
Although he's just bad agaisnt everything else, with the price he pays for AP 3...
Scions are also flimsier and have less range, although yes with their large number of special weapons and other such thigns they're very very good at killing MEQs. but they're no where near as flexable as a tac marine.
That requires some luck in rolling, and takes into account special rules. The argument I'm trying to get in here is, in a vacuum with the two dumbest players both rolling perfectly average. Who wins the fight? That is how you justify their points. A gutsy player who deep strikes into the middle of his opponents backfield or who uses terrain to his advantage negates the point differences based upon his or her play style. Also remember that tau fire warrior doesn't take into account the supporting marker lights I paid for in my army either, but they do affect the fight. So once again my scenario, bob and bubba steal their little brothers plastic toys and use their third grade (or as they call it, high school) education to figure out the rules and discover those little white square things can be used to represent numbers. They both deploy on the empty kitchen table 24" apart because they wanna see some action! If bubba picked the space marines and bob chose the one he can't pronounce, who wins the fight? (With the plastic guys and dice, the physical argument that results due to the outcome can be discussed in another topic)
Noc
PS I'm from the south so I get to use this example
Bobthehero wrote: 24 inches? More like 9 inches always, the Scions gets the drop on the SM purely becasue they come with deep strike built in.
And I've said wounds for wounds, they'll both have the same chance to a wound to one another. The one that goes first wins.
Assuming no cover is involved, and the Scions don't scatter unfortunately (read: at all).
Aside from that, they still stand a good chance of the surviving ~half squad of marines simply charging the poor scions in their MEQ players turn and killing off the Scions that way even after the alpha strike.
I want them to be good so bad, but they're only ever "trading even" under the most optimal of circumstances for a relatively tiny points discount.
It's even worse for the poor DKoK Grenadiers, with no DS and more expensive Chimeras
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: The issue isn't bolters per se, but bolters on Marines. Marines are expensive units that can't be made any cheaper really, that are no better at shooting than Sisters of Battle.
There needs to be something for Marines, and only Marines (including Chaos), using bolt pistols/bolters/storm bolters that makes them slightly better than non-Marine units with bolters.
Why should marines be better at shooting bolters than Sisters?
Okay, give them a rule to make them better at shooting bolter, do not forget to add 5/10 point to the cost of every marine to make up for it.
Do you hear the sound of the world's smallest violin playing?
Sisters have a lot more problems than just their bolter shooting, not least the fact that GW has no idea what to do with them, and that from their inception they were intended more as an ally army than a stand-alone army.
Space Marines were better at shooting than Sisters in 2nd edition, and since that's the edition I measure everything against they should be better at shooting now.
I have suggested one specific benefit, an extra shot, balanced by a significant impediment, the unit must remain stationary to benefit from it. All they're doing is shooting bolters, so that's far from an overpowering option.
Bobthehero wrote: 24 inches? More like 9 inches always, the Scions gets the drop on the SM purely becasue they come with deep strike built in.
And I've said wounds for wounds, they'll both have the same chance to a wound to one another. The one that goes first wins.
Assuming no cover is involved, and the Scions don't scatter unfortunately (read: at all).
Aside from that, they still stand a good chance of the surviving ~half squad of marines simply charging the poor scions in their MEQ players turn and killing off the Scions that way even after the alpha strike.
I want them to be good so bad, but they're only ever "trading even" under the most optimal of circumstances for a relatively tiny points discount.
It's even worse for the poor DKoK Grenadiers, with no DS and more expensive Chimeras
I feel ya, Grenadiers were my first purchase, my favorite models and my favorite unit in general, but they're bad. Now if you could attach them to a drill they'd be a tiny bit better...
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: The issue isn't bolters per se, but bolters on Marines. Marines are expensive units that can't be made any cheaper really, that are no better at shooting than Sisters of Battle.
There needs to be something for Marines, and only Marines (including Chaos), using bolt pistols/bolters/storm bolters that makes them slightly better than non-Marine units with bolters.
Why should marines be better at shooting bolters than Sisters?
Okay, give them a rule to make them better at shooting bolter, do not forget to add 5/10 point to the cost of every marine to make up for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Don't sisters get a 6+ invulnerable, meaning that they have a slight chance to survive AP3 / AP2 / AP1 weaponry?
That can be very useful on tanks, but on basic sisters, it is extremely anecdotal.
aren't sisters only BS3? if so then Marines ARE better with bolters then they are
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: The issue isn't bolters per se, but bolters on Marines. Marines are expensive units that can't be made any cheaper really, that are no better at shooting than Sisters of Battle.
There needs to be something for Marines, and only Marines (including Chaos), using bolt pistols/bolters/storm bolters that makes them slightly better than non-Marine units with bolters.
Why should marines be better at shooting bolters than Sisters? Okay, give them a rule to make them better at shooting bolter, do not forget to add 5/10 point to the cost of every marine to make up for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Don't sisters get a 6+ invulnerable, meaning that they have a slight chance to survive AP3 / AP2 / AP1 weaponry?
That can be very useful on tanks, but on basic sisters, it is extremely anecdotal.
aren't sisters only BS3? if so then Marines ARE better with bolters then they are
Nah, Sisters are BS4 WS3. They are basically stormtroopers with bolters and great looking power armor. I love gothic and baroque designs. I really hope they keep them.
No, I hear someone complaining that Marines are not better than everyone else at shooting bolters .
Freman Bloodglaive wrote: Space Marines were better at shooting than Sisters in 2nd edition, and since that's the edition I measure everything against they should be better at shooting now.
So you do also believe Canoness must be stronger and tougher than a marine, right?
But your option for making the supposedly flexible tactical even more focused on shooting rather than assaulting does not seem that good to me, sorry. I have a better solution for you. Use the Fist chapter trait. Bang, you are better at shooting bolters now!
BrianDavion wrote: aren't sisters only BS3? if so then Marines ARE better with bolters then they are
Sisters are ALL BS4, except the Canoness which is BS5, and Saint Celestine which is BS7.
It is only used when not in cover, against AP3- weapons. And even then, it is just one chance out of six.
We also have Adamantium Will, which is not really useful either since we have no psyker and will just suffer in the psychic phase anyway.
But your option for making the supposedly flexible tactical even more focused on shooting rather than assaulting does not seem that good to me, sorry. I have a better solution for you. Use the Fist chapter trait. Bang, you are better at shooting bolters now!
I said Marines. Who gives a darn about Tactical marines? I've never used them, I have no intention of every using them. If it's not riding a bike, wearing terminator armour, or wrapped in Space Wolves grey I simply don't care.
I advocate for Chaos getting a better themed army list, even though I don't play them. I'd happily advocate for Sisters of Battle getting a better list and rules. At the moment I'm advocating for bolter Marines being worth taking.
AP 4 vs AP 5 is basically irrelevant as almost nothing has a 4+ save. Units tend to either get 5+ or 3+ saves. The only faction that's really going to suffer from that are the Tau and as much as I like Tau, they're asking for it.
Then S5 is clearly a boost and generally works out as +1 to wound.
I think I'd rather have a 15 or 16 point marine with a S5 AP 4 than a 14 point marine with S4 AP 5. Assuming it needs to be adjusted at all. Plus at S5 you can put the fear of the Omnissiah in more vehicles.
Plus it'll help the Sisters of Battle trifecta. Meltas against annoying vehicles. Flamers against annoying cover. Bolters against everything else.
AP 4 vs AP 5 is basically irrelevant as almost nothing has a 4+ save. Units tend to either get 5+ or 3+ saves. The only faction that's really going to suffer from that are the Tau and as much as I like Tau, they're asking for it.
Then S5 is clearly a boost and generally works out as +1 to wound.
I think I'd rather have a 15 or 16 point marine with a S5 AP 4 than a 14 point marine with S4 AP 5. Assuming it needs to be adjusted at all. Plus at S5 you can put the fear of the Omnissiah in more vehicles.
Plus it'll help the Sisters of Battle trifecta. Meltas against annoying vehicles. Flamers against annoying cover. Bolters against everything else.
S5 AP4 bolters exist already. They are called Heavy Bolters. And yes, there are a large number of units that do have 4+ saves that would suffer from this. Tau firewarriors, Scions, AM Vets, and Eldar Guardians just for example.
AP 4 vs AP 5 is basically irrelevant as almost nothing has a 4+ save. Units tend to either get 5+ or 3+ saves. The only faction that's really going to suffer from that are the Tau and as much as I like Tau, they're asking for it.
Then S5 is clearly a boost and generally works out as +1 to wound.
I think I'd rather have a 15 or 16 point marine with a S5 AP 4 than a 14 point marine with S4 AP 5. Assuming it needs to be adjusted at all. Plus at S5 you can put the fear of the Omnissiah in more vehicles.
Plus it'll help the Sisters of Battle trifecta. Meltas against annoying vehicles. Flamers against annoying cover. Bolters against everything else.
S5 AP4 bolters exist already. They are called Heavy Bolters. And yes, there are a large number of units that do have 4+ saves that would suffer from this. Tau firewarriors, Scions, AM Vets, and Eldar Guardians just for example.
Noc
Eldar Aspect Warriors, I think you mean. Guardians are only 5+.
But yes, AP4 bolters would pose problems for units that pay for a save against bolters.
Not only that it brings up a few design problems. Pulse weapons were designed to be better than bolters, shuriken to be similar. Making them that powerful, especially with no points increase, and that's not even touching on all the other units that have bolters, is slightly ridiculous.
No, not being an anti-tank weapon is not what makes them garbage.
The heavy bolter isn't even a good anti-horde weapon, either.
This is their problem.
If you're going to claim heavy bolters have issues because they can't shoot down wave serpents, you might as well claim lasguns are awful because they can't blow up Trukks.
You are correct, I was thinking of the aspect warriors. Also Orks that pay the upgrade for Eavy armour. Why even buy it if the humble bolter completly bypassed it. Do any of the "basic" weapons have an AP better than 5? The only one that jumps out at me is Scions, and they themselves will fold like wet paper considering they are only T3.
My primary point was that Eldar are never without their fancy transports, so that gives marines precious few opportunities to use heavy bolters against them. Even against lists like Orks or Nids, heavy bolters don't cause nearly enough casualties compared to a template weapon.
With the current range of possible Strengths and APs for weapons, there is no fix for the bolter, or even the heavy bolter. They both suck, and lists have to be built with this in mind. Ie, minimize the presence of both.
Martel732 wrote: My primary point was that Eldar are never without their fancy transports, so that gives marines precious few opportunities to use heavy bolters against them. Even against lists like Orks or Nids, heavy bolters don't cause nearly enough casualties compared to a template weapon.
With the current range of possible Strengths and APs for weapons, there is no fix for the bolter, or even the heavy bolter. They both suck, and lists have to be built with this in mind. Ie, minimize the presence of both.
I don't think I understand your logic. Transports are designed that way to protect them. If regular weapons could get through them why take a transport? Most armies can bring lots of strong firepower to vehicles anyway to destroy them. It is only the 3+ skimmer jink save that make vehicles out of control right now. This has nothing to do with the bolter or heavy bolter.
In addition, there is nothing wrong with the bolter. It is the perfect middle of the road weapon and its free. It ignores armor on several armies and hits hard on anyone with T3. It only falls short verse power armor or better. If it were any stronger there would never be a need to take special weapons or go into close combat because everything would be dead or running away. Most people would agree that the plague of strong special weapons is ruining the game as it is making expensive models hard to take. So why would you want it to be more powerful? Bladestorm is a good example of this problem where a basic weapon is suddenly super strong for no reason. Gauss should probably be rethought also to something like on a 6 it removes an AV instead of causing a hull point of damage.
I think if you rethought how special weapons are purchased you could actually solve the problem. Heavy Bolters suck because they cost way to much. They should honestly be a free upgrade for tactical or devastator squads. The penalty being you have to stay still to use them. Or at least maybe free for a full 10 man squad. It is the same way with IG where there a bunch of weapons no one uses because they are priced to similar (HB vs AC, GL and Snipers). It would make taking these lesser weapons more reasonable and better weapons more of a risk.
I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.
Martel732 wrote: My primary point was that Eldar are never without their fancy transports, so that gives marines precious few opportunities to use heavy bolters against them. Even against lists like Orks or Nids, heavy bolters don't cause nearly enough casualties compared to a template weapon.
With the current range of possible Strengths and APs for weapons, there is no fix for the bolter, or even the heavy bolter. They both suck, and lists have to be built with this in mind. Ie, minimize the presence of both.
I don't think I understand your logic. Transports are designed that way to protect them. If regular weapons could get through them why take a transport? Most armies can bring lots of strong firepower to vehicles anyway to destroy them. It is only the 3+ skimmer jink save that make vehicles out of control right now. This has nothing to do with the bolter or heavy bolter.
In addition, there is nothing wrong with the bolter. It is the perfect middle of the road weapon and its free. It ignores armor on several armies and hits hard on anyone with T3. It only falls short verse power armor or better. If it were any stronger there would never be a need to take special weapons or go into close combat because everything would be dead or running away. Most people would agree that the plague of strong special weapons is ruining the game as it is making expensive models hard to take. So why would you want it to be more powerful? Bladestorm is a good example of this problem where a basic weapon is suddenly super strong for no reason. Gauss should probably be rethought also to something like on a 6 it removes an AV instead of causing a hull point of damage.
I think if you rethought how special weapons are purchased you could actually solve the problem. Heavy Bolters suck because they cost way to much. They should honestly be a free upgrade for tactical or devastator squads. The penalty being you have to stay still to use them. Or at least maybe free for a full 10 man squad. It is the same way with IG where there a bunch of weapons no one uses because they are priced to similar (HB vs AC, GL and Snipers). It would make taking these lesser weapons more reasonable and better weapons more of a risk.
Bolters aren't free, I just can't sell them back them, which I would. Because they are awful and rarely contribute for me in an average game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nocturus wrote: I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.
Noc
I still think that needing to roll to hit would make it vastly inferior to template weapons. There's just no way to make them viable as the game currently stands.
Nocturus wrote: I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.
I don't think that would help. Especially since HBs should be 5pts at the moment anyway.
But, regardless, the problem is that S5 AP4 just isn't useful on a 3-shot heavy weapon. It's useful on a flamer template - because that can cover a large amount of models, and ignores both to-hit and cover.
However, even with your proposed 4 shots, HBs just won't do enough damage to make them worthwhile. Furthermore, unlike multi-meltas, autocannons, lascannons and similar weapons, HBs don't really increase the squad's versatility. If you want anti-horde weapons, most units already have that covered with their basic weapons - they generally want heavier weapons to threaten different unit types.
So, what we have is a weapon that lacks the shots to worry hordes, but also lacks the strength/AP to concern vehicles, MCs or elite infantry.
I think it even needs Rending (or pseudo-rending, like Bladestorm), or else more shots. i.e. either give it a way to threaten other unit types, or else give it enough shots to concern hordes.
Honestly, I think the assault cannon and heavy bolter both need a steep increase in shots to represent what they are supposed to be in the game. As it stands, I find both very underwhelming weapons.
Nocturus wrote: I'd like to see Heavy bolters be changed to Salvo 2/4 and make them a 5 point upgrade. That would cut their price in half and make them more capable of doing some damage vs hordes.
I don't think that would help. Especially since HBs should be 5pts at the moment anyway.
But, regardless, the problem is that S5 AP4 just isn't useful on a 3-shot heavy weapon. It's useful on a flamer template - because that can cover a large amount of models, and ignores both to-hit and cover.
However, even with your proposed 4 shots, HBs just won't do enough damage to make them worthwhile. Furthermore, unlike multi-meltas, autocannons, lascannons and similar weapons, HBs don't really increase the squad's versatility. If you want anti-horde weapons, most units already have that covered with their basic weapons - they generally want heavier weapons to threaten different unit types.
So, what we have is a weapon that lacks the shots to worry hordes, but also lacks the strength/AP to concern vehicles, MCs or elite infantry.
I think it even needs Rending (or pseudo-rending, like Bladestorm), or else more shots. i.e. either give it a way to threaten other unit types, or else give it enough shots to concern hordes.
That is why they should just be a free upgrade. On Devastators that would be 12 S5 shots at BS4 for base points is nothing to sneeze at. Especially since that is enough shots to shred light vehicles like Rhinos and War Walkers in a pinch. That is around 7 T3 below AP unsaved wounds and and 5 T4 unsaved wounds below AP. That ensures at least a leadership test on every squad. In a regular tactical squad, it is about 4 unsaved wounds at armor 4+ with one volley plus bolters. Again enough for a leadership test. On T4 its around 2.5 unsaved wounds. Not to great to great but still respectable.
You can't just start throwing upgrades on them because they are so common. Every IG vehicle can take a HB and now suddenly they are all quasi rending is an OP upgrade. They need to be just allowed to be a small boost that people still have a reason to take it not spam it to hell.
Some other weapons might need a boost like you would suggest as in more shots or something. The only legit upgrade HB could use would be pinning.
Even in a devastator squad, they are very poor. In this case, 12 shots are something to sneeze at because they just consumed one of my heavy slots. The TFC laughs in your general direction.
Martel732 wrote: Even in a devastator squad, they are very poor. In this case, 12 shots are something to sneeze at because they just consumed one of my heavy slots. The TFC laughs in your general direction.
No, it doesn't because it serves a different purpose. Thunderfire can still miss big or can hit you if you fire it at close range. It also does not ignore 4+ saves and costs 30 more points. It also can't over watch. The thunderfire excels in other areas and there are also some who would say the thunderfire is too cheap for its points. However, the idea to figure out how to make HB something you would consider using not make them better than a thunderfire.
To add to that further, there are some players that make builds that do not use Heavy Slots and don't prize them as much as you do.
Its only awful because you have convinced yourself that unless it destroys everything it is garbage as per your bolter comment.
Again I would point out that the internet believes the relative commonness of high strength low AP weapons is hampering many of the units in the game. This is a common problem people state with tactical squad or terminators dying way to easily. If you scale things like plasma up and less used weapons down suddenly there is a reason to take those less used weapons.
nedTCM wrote: Its only awful because you have convinced yourself that unless it destroys everything it is garbage as per your bolter comment.
Again I would point out that the internet believes the relative commonness of high strength low AP weapons is hampering many of the units in the game. This is a common problem people state with tactical squad or terminators dying way to easily. If you scale things like plasma up and less used weapons down suddenly there is a reason to take those less used weapons.
No, it's garbage because it destroys nothing. Or at least, not nearly enough to justify the cost.
What do you mean by scale? As it stands, plasma is far superior to any bolter weapon. It's not even close.
As I pointed out before, it can be effective based on the numbers I posted. There are plenty of target it is good against. It just right now there are cheaper way to do that job so why bother.
Scale meaning its price. If you lower the price of low end weapons (like the HB or the grenade launcher) and increase the price of the more powerful weapons (like plasma) it would make the lower weapons more worthwhile. In additions, units like terminators or tactical more accessible because you wouldn't have to worry about plasma spam or the like.
nedTCM wrote: As I pointed out before, it can be effective based on the numbers I posted. There are plenty of target it is good against. It just right now there are cheaper way to do that job so why bother.
Scale meaning its price. If you lower the price of low end weapons (like the HB or the grenade launcher) and increase the price of the more powerful weapons (like plasma) it would make the lower weapons more worthwhile. In additions, units like terminators or tactical more accessible because you wouldn't have to worry about plasma spam or the like.
Maybe, but then units like Riptides become impossible to engage in a cost-effective manner. Unless you make it cost more as well.
As I said earlier, the rolling to hit and then the prevalence of cover just destroys the heavy bolter's efficacy against hordes. So there's literally no reason to take it, making it a terrible weapon. It's not just because I declared it. There are mathematical reasons for it being terrible.
You can't justify it with cover. You could make the claim that a plasma gun is not effective because of cover in that I am paying 15 points and he still gets a 4+ save in a ruin.
More over the Riptide example is faulty as well because the riptide is widely regarded as underpriced at base and worse underpriced with its upgrades. There are a lot units that fall under the underpriced OP catagory and you can't really use them as a yardstick for however everything else is measured. It is a different problem all together. Most of the time you should be getting a 5+ base cover save when advancing with a unit, maybe a 4+ if you are lucky. There are several units that are cheesing their way to obscene cover saves (2+ demon prince BS). Again different problem with the game all together.
A heavy bolter will get 2 turns of full shooting before a charge. That should off set any bonus that a unit advancing in cover gains and he can't hide behind cover forever.
Rending would fix them, wouldnt turn into reliable AT weapon but make dangerous and simulate direct hit with a mini rocket to carnifex eye or daemon prince anus. I would also give each tactical marine a chainsword and make that rending too to translate the fluff uber soldiers factor onto battlefield, it would probably require point adjustment but hey they need to be fukin scary not a joke they are now. Once I won a game with an SM guy whose only fault apart from abysmal target priority was taking too many tacticals, I had cc carnifex genestealers with broodlords swarmlord tyrant guards warriors and one venomthrope, we played on a table without a single piece of cover and it just shouldnt have happened. He had predators, dreds , I was ready to loose but in the end badly destroyed him and tacticals did nothing except bringing shame on themselves. Recent nid and sm codieces, end of 6th edition.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not only that it brings up a few design problems. Pulse weapons were designed to be better than bolters, shuriken to be similar. Making them that powerful, especially with no points increase, and that's not even touching on all the other units that have bolters, is slightly ridiculous.
Well, it's going to be difficult to buff bolters without making them tread into pulse rifle territory.
If you feel it becomes a fluff problem, you can always remember there's a difference between bolter and bolter. Presumably this 'pulse > bolter' refers to human bolters.
You know, there's a difference between the bolter that humans fire one-handed
Spoiler:
And the bolters that they, well... don't.
Spoiler:
“The angel’s brethren emerged from the dark interior of their landing craft and descended to the plaza. All wore armour of the same blue. All of them carried great weapons too heavy for a mortal man to lift unaided.”
Pg.20 The First Heretic
“He saw Tycho’s combi-weapon lying on the floor and took a half-step toward it. The idea of taking it up himself died in this mind; the gun was so massive he would never have been able to lift it.”
Pg.320 Blood Angels Omnibus
Like other Space Marine weaponry, Astartes boltguns are designed around their superhuman physique. The weight of each weapon would require most humans to use a supporting brace, with hand-grips larger than any normal human could manage. However, even if a normal human were to fire the boltgun, the resulting recoil would rip their arm from its socket.
Dark Heresy Pg. 173
I still stand that that bolters need no buff, but it has been pretty consistent with both fluff and crunch that pulse rifles are superior to bolters in both range and power. That includes SM ones. I mean, they could change the fluff to make "astartes bolters" or something, but the fluff (when not being stupidly overpowered mini battlecannons) has made them equal to normal bolters, just upsized to fit the hands of a marine. Most of the power of SM bolters seems to come from the increased availability of special ammunition.
Which I am not sure if I like. Tau have various advantages over the IOM - the Pulse Rifle is VASTLY superior to the lasgun, and each FW has better armour than a Guardsman.
However, given the sheer rarity, size, power and expense of each Astartes, you'd think they'd give them some more special weapons than 'just' bolters. You're putting lots of time, resources and effort into creating a weapon platform that is far stronger, tougher and faster than a human. Coupled with PA, they are capable of not only lifting but only efficiently firing weapons not even catachans could dream of using. So why give them bolters any normal guy could wield? Like, make heavy bolters standard issue or something. Or make some semi-heavy bolters that exchange the increased RoF for increased mobility. Or just plasma guns for everyone. If you can give dog-standard IG squads plasma gunners, then you'll damn well have enough plasma guns for a million SM. It'd fit them perfectly. Bolters would maybe be better against hordes, but fighting hordes is not the SMs job. They do it well, but not efficiently.
So yeah, basic IG-style bolters don't make sense for IG. As far as I am concerned, SM bolters are identical to the more finely crafted, typically high-officer-issue IG bolters, and using the same STC - except everything is scaled up, from grip to stock to ammo.
Honestly, I think this is a problem of the "Space Marines are the standard" design philosophy. Marines are supposed to be elite super soldiers not the grunts of the Imperium. GW needs to retool the faction.
TheCustomLime wrote: Honestly, I think this is a problem of the "Space Marines are the standard" design philosophy. Marines are supposed to be elite super soldiers not the grunts of the Imperium. GW needs to retool the faction.
That's certainly one of the issues. When 1/3 of the factions are guys in power armour with bolters riding in rhinos, but the fluff says how exceedingly rare they are and how they're supposed to only be used in small, surgical operations, things start getting wonky between crunch and fluff.
TheCustomLime wrote: Honestly, I think this is a problem of the "Space Marines are the standard" design philosophy. Marines are supposed to be elite super soldiers not the grunts of the Imperium. GW needs to retool the faction.
That's certainly one of the issues. When 1/3 of the factions are guys in power armour with bolters riding in rhinos, but the fluff says how exceedingly rare they are and how they're supposed to only be used in small, surgical operations, things start getting wonky between crunch and fluff.
Yeah. They also always seem to be in every IoM operation that gets mentioned. It seems that GW can't decide whether they are a frontline Imperial army or the SAS of the IoM.
.
