Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 17:08:26


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Now obviously there's a lot of controversy for how we make some of the most basic weapons in 40k more appealing. Rather than adding Strength or AP, which leads to to power creep due to how other armies work and half the armies having them. So my simply fix I've brought up is:
If this weapon gets a 6+ on the wound roll, the targeted must reroll any successful save from this weapon.

It isn't extreme or anything and makes Lt.s more appealing for the grunt. Thoughts? Not extreme? Too extreme?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 17:39:22


Post by: skchsan


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now obviously there's a lot of controversy for how we make some of the most basic weapons in 40k more appealing. Rather than adding Strength or AP, which leads to to power creep due to how other armies work and half the armies having them. So my simply fix I've brought up is:
If this weapon gets a 6+ on the wound roll, the targeted must reroll any successful save from this weapon.

It isn't extreme or anything and makes Lt.s more appealing for the grunt. Thoughts? Not extreme? Too extreme?


A bit extreme. Adds another unnecessary layer of dice off.

Alternatively in my opinion, going with your idea of "crit chance" on natural rolls of 6 - 'If you roll a 6 on to wound roll, the shot is resolved at -1 AP' wound integrate itself more smoothly into the system without adding another dice roll. Other armies already have this 'critical strike' element built into their basic weapons, like eldar.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 19:38:28


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 skchsan wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now obviously there's a lot of controversy for how we make some of the most basic weapons in 40k more appealing. Rather than adding Strength or AP, which leads to to power creep due to how other armies work and half the armies having them. So my simply fix I've brought up is:
If this weapon gets a 6+ on the wound roll, the targeted must reroll any successful save from this weapon.

It isn't extreme or anything and makes Lt.s more appealing for the grunt. Thoughts? Not extreme? Too extreme?


A bit extreme. Adds another unnecessary layer of dice off.

Alternatively in my opinion, going with your idea of "crit chance" on natural rolls of 6 - 'If you roll a 6 on to wound roll, the shot is resolved at -1 AP' wound integrate itself more smoothly into the system without adding another dice roll. Other armies already have this 'critical strike' element built into their basic weapons, like eldar.

That said, I was trying to keep it more unique compared to straight AP benefits.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 19:44:27


Post by: Grey Templar


Yeah, making Bolt weapons be similar to the Eldar Shurikan weapons would work a little better. Roll a 6 to wound and it's resolved with an additional -1 ap.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 19:47:51


Post by: skchsan


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That said, I was trying to keep it more unique compared to straight AP benefits.
Yes I understand, but it seems like too much for a run-of-the-mill weapon of the grimdark future. Bolters are the MP5's of 40k.

Nearly all armies have access to bolter-like weapon (or similar equivalent), not to mention bolters are pretty much the benchmark ranged weapon of the game.

While I do agree that it needs a slight bump like the chansword upgrade in 8th, but not to a degree where it begins to compete with other paid for weapons or becomes a 'valid choice'.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 20:55:04


Post by: Torga_DW


 skchsan wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That said, I was trying to keep it more unique compared to straight AP benefits.
Yes I understand, but it seems like too much for a run-of-the-mill weapon of the grimdark future. Bolters are the MP5's of 40k.

Nearly all armies have access to bolter-like weapon (or similar equivalent), not to mention bolters are pretty much the benchmark ranged weapon of the game.

While I do agree that it needs a slight bump like the chansword upgrade in 8th, but not to a degree where it begins to compete with other paid for weapons or becomes a 'valid choice'.


In the fluff, bolters are an elite weapon almost exclusively used by elite and rare armies like marines and sisters. On the tabletop they're run-of-the-mill because of the proportion of marine players. Nearly all armies have a s4 weapon, which is bolter-like (given that s4 is it's only real characteristic), plus special rules on top of that. Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 21:00:06


Post by: Desubot


Ya know it would probably considered grossly overpowered but personally would rather they on to wounds of 6s cause 2 damage instead of one. representing a shot that is straight up fragging a guy with its explosive tip.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 21:01:52


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Desubot wrote:
Ya know it would probably considered grossly overpowered but personally would rather they on to wounds of 6s cause 2 damage instead of one. representing a shot that is straight up fragging a guy with its explosive tip.

Which makes them more useful vs multi-wound models than the singular ones. The question is if that's more necessary.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 21:02:54


Post by: greatbigtree


Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 21:08:29


Post by: skchsan


 Torga_DW wrote:
Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

Yes, bolters shouldn't be improved to a point where it starts competing with special weapons. Its an issue of the game lacking more gradients - currently, the ranged weapon stats can be roughly broken down into:

S3 - lasgun equiv
S4 - bolter equiv
S5 - gauss equiv
S6 - assault cannon equiv
S7 - autocannon equiv
S8 - melta equiv
S9 - lascannon equiv
S10 - vindicator equiv

On tabletop, like lasguns, bolters are still nonetheless ranged weapon of 'weight of dice.' I feel like the issue with standard-issue boltguns isn't that bolters are bad, but that on tac squad those 10 bolters are tad bit shy of being threatening enough for them to have a presence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 greatbigtree wrote:
Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.

^ This.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 21:36:00


Post by: Torga_DW


 skchsan wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

Yes, bolters shouldn't be improved to a point where it starts competing with special weapons.


Do you honestly believe, that if slayer's special rule was implemented, people would choose bolters over special weapons? Like say IG squads, if they had an option to buy a bolter as their infantry squad special, they would do that? Not that i think that would happen, but I guess i just fundamentally disagree with your premise - imo bolters are a special weapon, carried by extremely rare special forces that are supposed to make conventional special forces look like boy scouts.


 skchsan wrote:
Its an issue of the game lacking more gradients - currently, the ranged weapon stats can be roughly broken down into:
S3 - lasgun equiv
S4 - bolter equiv
S5 - gauss equiv
S6 - assault cannon equiv
S7 - autocannon equiv
S8 - melta equiv
S9 - lascannon equiv
S10 - vindicator equiv


Most weapons have an equivalent amongst different armies, but since we're discussing infantry it's easier to say:
S4 - infantry weapon equiv
Almost *every* basic infantry weapon is S4, with special rules and/or variations. That's before you consider prices.


 skchsan wrote:

On tabletop, like lasguns, bolters are still nonetheless ranged weapon of 'weight of dice.' I feel like the issue with standard-issue boltguns isn't that bolters are bad, but that on tac squad those 10 bolters are tad bit shy of being threatening enough for them to have a presence.


That's because tactical marines are too expensive to provide weight of dice with their basic shooting. If tactical marines were cheaper, that might be viable. But i don't think anyone wants cheaper tactical marines.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 21:56:13


Post by: techsoldaten


I've been thinking they should be AP-1 all the time. You're firing a tiny rocket that explodes on impact. It should be able to take off some armor with that.

Would certainly make tacticals interesting again.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 22:22:00


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 greatbigtree wrote:
Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.

I'm actually in agreement the Commisar nerf was too far. Two dice and picking the lowest would be better than what we have now. Or making it optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:
I've been thinking they should be AP-1 all the time. You're firing a tiny rocket that explodes on impact. It should be able to take off some armor with that.

Would certainly make tacticals interesting again.

Which then steps on the toes of Intercessors (who would only have longer range) and Necron Warriors (as that's the stat of the Gauss Flayer in the first place).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

Yes, bolters shouldn't be improved to a point where it starts competing with special weapons. Its an issue of the game lacking more gradients - currently, the ranged weapon stats can be roughly broken down into:

S3 - lasgun equiv
S4 - bolter equiv
S5 - gauss equiv
S6 - assault cannon equiv
S7 - autocannon equiv
S8 - melta equiv
S9 - lascannon equiv
S10 - vindicator equiv

On tabletop, like lasguns, bolters are still nonetheless ranged weapon of 'weight of dice.' I feel like the issue with standard-issue boltguns isn't that bolters are bad, but that on tac squad those 10 bolters are tad bit shy of being threatening enough for them to have a presence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 greatbigtree wrote:
Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.

^ This.

Have you seen all the Bolter equivalents? They're better and on infantry the same price or cheaper. We can look at them individually though.
1. The Ork Shoota is instead Assault 2 18". While the Bolter has 6" more of range, it's better at the 18"-12.1" mark, and on top of that has the ability to let them advance and shoot. It's a better weapon for that flexibility.
2. The Shuriken Catapult has the same stats but gives AP-3 when wounding on a 6. Strictly better.
3. The Gauss Flayer is the same stats but AP-1. It's also strictly better.
4. The Pulse Rifle is S5 and 30". Once again, strictly better.
5. I'm not actually sure how you got Gauss equivalent here. The Immortal guns are a strictly different animal. The army just doesn't function because of how RP functions at the moment, on top of having nothing special outside that. Differing topic though.

This goes on. Anything worse than that is on cheaper infantry that already win firefights against the Tactical Marine (which has always been discussed at length).
It doesn't even compete with Special Weapons because you're not gonna purchase them as a Special Weapon. It's not filling a niche like anything else. What it's doing is making the bog standard Marine worth taking. There's no weight of dice when the cheapest Bolter is on a 11 point model. There's weight of dice of a S3 weapon on a 3-4 point model though. To put that in perspective, would you rather 1 Bolter for 11 points or 3-4 Lasguns for 12? Exactly.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/03 22:41:57


Post by: Vaktathi


For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 00:38:24


Post by: Wyldhunt


@SlayerFan:
A couple of nitpicks:
*Shootas have better gun profiles, but this is significantly offset by the low ballistics skill of the ork shooting it. Being able to shoot after advancing is only so useful when that means you're hitting on 6s.
*Shuriken catapults are superior within 12". They also don't fire at all beyond 12". So you're trading range for (sometimes) better AP. It'as also worth pointing out that units with shuriken catapults also tend to rely on that AP to substitute for their lack of access to portable special weapons. So if you want to hop out of a serpent with a bunch of guardians and need to shoot at some marines, you're doing so without the benefit of a plasma gun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.


I think the crux of the issue here is the disparity between fluff and mechanics. A bolter probably isn't all that unreasonable for its cost, but the wielder is usually a marine, and standard marines don't live up to their hype. I think the primaris marine weaponry has the "feel" that we all expect from bolters based on fluff, but GW is selling primaris as distinct options from regular marines, so... Yeah.

I think my ideal-but-impractical solution is to give normal marines primaris statlines and pretend that primaris marines were just regular marines the whole time. This is probably off-topic, but do we not all just want primaris marines with access to special/heavy weapons and transports?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 01:02:16


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wyldhunt wrote:
@SlayerFan:
A couple of nitpicks:
*Shootas have better gun profiles, but this is significantly offset by the low ballistics skill of the ork shooting it. Being able to shoot after advancing is only so useful when that means you're hitting on 6s.
*Shuriken catapults are superior within 12". They also don't fire at all beyond 12". So you're trading range for (sometimes) better AP. It'as also worth pointing out that units with shuriken catapults also tend to rely on that AP to substitute for their lack of access to portable special weapons. So if you want to hop out of a serpent with a bunch of guardians and need to shoot at some marines, you're doing so without the benefit of a plasma gun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.


I think the crux of the issue here is the disparity between fluff and mechanics. A bolter probably isn't all that unreasonable for its cost, but the wielder is usually a marine, and standard marines don't live up to their hype. I think the primaris marine weaponry has the "feel" that we all expect from bolters based on fluff, but GW is selling primaris as distinct options from regular marines, so... Yeah.

I think my ideal-but-impractical solution is to give normal marines primaris statlines and pretend that primaris marines were just regular marines the whole time. This is probably off-topic, but do we not all just want primaris marines with access to special/heavy weapons and transports?

I meant to say the Avenger Shuriken Catapult. Should be obvious based off the fact i said it was a Shoota with that bonus, but you can nitpick that if you feel like it.
The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those.

You also overestimate the ability to carry a Plasma Gun because each Plasma Gun and Combi Plasma you buy is another model or two. Marines are not carrying enough special weapons at the troop level that this is a bonus. That's why units like Veterans, Sternguard, and Devastators are strictly better in this manner. Then you just end up with the Bolter dudes as super expensive meat shields FOR those weapons. It doesn't work. Remember how that one guy won the tournament and some of you clamored to it as your proof Tactical Marines were good? Look what happens at the very next two: little to none of them. As I predicted.

We already have a thread on how to fix the Tactical Marine entry itself, which the primary issue is why would you take a Bolter on anything as we partly discovered (on top of the super low damaging weapon count). Even the better Bolt Weapons lack a lot, and really what we need to do is fix these issues without trying to increase Power Creep. That's the goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.

I actually want this change in the Bolters sisters carry as well.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 01:40:47


Post by: AnomanderRake


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 02:09:56


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 04:27:38


Post by: Martel732


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?


Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 06:36:05


Post by: AnomanderRake


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 11:23:23


Post by: Formosa


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.


What about sisters, what about chaos, what about everything else that uses bolters, and space marines are good not because of bolters but in spite of them, tactical squads are usually considered mediocre due to many reasons, one of them is the Bolter.

But that's not why I would want them changed, I want them changed as Bolters poorly represent themselves compared to the fluff as I said in another thread I would like the Bolter tonbecome the short range death machine it should be.

Str4 ap- range 18" rapid fire 3 damage 1 special rule:"mass reactive" any to wound roll of 6+ increase the bootees damage by 1


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 11:53:03


Post by: Blackie


IMHO bolt weapons are fine as they are. Stormbolters should be more expensive, 4-5 points instead of 2.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 12:29:40


Post by: Haravikk


I've been toying with the idea of special rules for bolters for a while. First of all, to those asking "why?" the simple answer is; because they're boring! Bolters are supposed to be rapid firing explosive bolts, yet S4 doesn't really capture that at all. Some people don't like fluffy rules, but the thing is, 40k has always been just terrible when it comes to balance, so fluffy rules are more appealing to me as it's about capturing the character of a unit or weapon. It should still be as simple as possible, just not so simple that it's boring.


The options I see are:
  • Give them AP -1 as standard; simplest option, and would bring parity with Bolt Rifles which are then simply longer ranged. The background just doesn't justify why they should be better at both range and AP anyway, except that GW wants you to toss your current army and goo all of your money all over the new Primaris marines. The downside to this option is that it's probably a bit too powerful.
  • AP -1 vs. cover; toned down version of the first option, causing the AP -1 to only kick on for enemies in cover. The main downside of this is that it diminishes the usefulness of cover against any enemy with a lot of bolters.
  • For each to-Hit roll of 6, roll an extra hit dice; this would give the front-line bolter a small, but useful boost to the number of hits that they inflict, giving a bit more impact against a variety of targets. I quite like this in terms of fluff as it represents a well placed bolt catching others in the same blast, throwing shrapnel etc.

I'm leaning towards the last option personally; it gives you an extra 1/6 shots to roll on average, or an extra 1/9 hits if my math is right, so it's not a big boost, but can combine quite well with a lot of other rules (1's to-Hit re-rolls for example), making the massed bolter more formidable for armies built around a core of tactical marines.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 15:56:23


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.

1. You didn't answer the question. In fact, you completely ignored it by saying "Well you have this instead!" when those things don't matter. Let's look at those!
2. ATSKNF is useless because nobody is taking squads above 5 dudes.
3. S4 doesn't matter because most of the units are shooting, so they pay for a stat they won't use and, when they do, still aren't mathematically good. Additional strength doesn't matter when you've only got the 1 attack!
4. And we've shown that Tactical Marines are a terrible way to get Special Weapons and heavy weapons because of the cost to do it. If you were an ACTUAL Marine player you'd see that units like Veterans, Sternguard, and Devastators are doing this proliferation of weapons for cheaper and better. Objective Secured is a terrible rule to lose that efficiency.
Plus look at the winning lists! It's Razorbacks and Rowboat. Eliminate one of those and Marines aren't gonna compete.
5. I'd actually take Dire Avengers over a host of units. They have a focused goal and loadout, and are pretty cheap now too. Plus I can get an easy 5++ on them. 17 points was pretty ridiculous, now they're more than reasonable.
Spoken like a true Eldar player that doesn't know how good they've had it for years upon years.
6. The dudes are packaged with the gun. There's a difference between looking in a vacuum and literally ignoring equipment. Bolter Marines are expensive meat shields FOR Special Weapons, and there's not a lot of them to begin with.
7. The Lasgun stays cheap to keep Guard cheap, and we've had Mathhammer demonstrate that Guard infantry comes up ahead in a shootout AND in melee.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 15:59:19


Post by: doktor_g


It think it's a great idea if ork shootas and sluggas become more appealing by making the target reroll wounds if they hit with a 5 or 6. Fair is fair...


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 16:15:24


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 doktor_g wrote:
It think it's a great idea if ork shootas and sluggas become more appealing by making the target reroll wounds if they hit with a 5 or 6. Fair is fair...

Orks either need to hit no matter what on a 6 or generate another attack. Or both. I'd be content with both.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 16:50:42


Post by: greatbigtree


Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.


It's like a joke that keeps telling itself over and over again.

The Bolter, in the fluff, is an unstoppable killing machine wielded by an unstoppable killing life form inside unstoppable killing armour deployed from a killing pod dropped from killing orbit to kill stuff killed.

But on the table, it's literally to most common weapon that something can be armed with. All ranged weapon rules need to recourse to this baseline weapon. A gauss weapon disintegrates things. It doesn't blast it apart, it turns existence into non existence for matter. Bladestorm, or whatever the rule is called now, represents a molecule thin blade catching a weak point. Ork sluggas fire 2.00 calibre projectiles. The weapon has stats to represent a fictional weapon in an abstract way.

If you gave special rules to a bolt gun, how could you represent the fancy bolt ammo? It takes the concept of a special rule and makes it banal.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 17:10:49


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Fancy Bolt ammo doesn't get used terribly often, so that's almost a non-issue. Otherwise, Deathwatch already does this.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 17:36:03


Post by: Martel732


 greatbigtree wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.


It's like a joke that keeps telling itself over and over again.

The Bolter, in the fluff, is an unstoppable killing machine wielded by an unstoppable killing life form inside unstoppable killing armour deployed from a killing pod dropped from killing orbit to kill stuff killed.

But on the table, it's literally to most common weapon that something can be armed with. All ranged weapon rules need to recourse to this baseline weapon. A gauss weapon disintegrates things. It doesn't blast it apart, it turns existence into non existence for matter. Bladestorm, or whatever the rule is called now, represents a molecule thin blade catching a weak point. Ork sluggas fire 2.00 calibre projectiles. The weapon has stats to represent a fictional weapon in an abstract way.

If you gave special rules to a bolt gun, how could you represent the fancy bolt ammo? It takes the concept of a special rule and makes it banal.


I didn't start this thread. I was just commenting on the marine special ability. Which is losing to IG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.



They are not more cost effective, because infantry are now space fillers. And marines make TERRIBLE space fillers.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 17:54:49


Post by: greatbigtree


Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.

I didn't start this thread. I was just commenting on the marine special ability. Which is losing to IG.


This is the refrain that never ends! Yes it goes on and on, my friends. Someone started complaining, not knowing Jacks from Squats, and they'll keep on complaining, forever, to G-Dubs because...

Leave bolters alone. If needs must be, drop the price of a Tactical to bring them in line with other troops, which I'm not advocating, but would be the correct way to balance the cornerstone model in the game.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 17:58:15


Post by: Martel732


Cheaper is always good, too. It's merely an annoyance to me how crappy the bolter is. Miscosting is a much bigger annoyance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.


Eldar will never get sympathy from me. Ever. You guys in fact deserve a down edition. Not a popular opinion, but Eldar have had it too good for too long. I dont' want to hear about marine S or T, becuse it hasn't ever mattered and likely never will. The marine statline is a joke in a game with super efficient shooting, as has been the case since 5th.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 18:31:48


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 greatbigtree wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.

I didn't start this thread. I was just commenting on the marine special ability. Which is losing to IG.


This is the refrain that never ends! Yes it goes on and on, my friends. Someone started complaining, not knowing Jacks from Squats, and they'll keep on complaining, forever, to G-Dubs because...

Leave bolters alone. If needs must be, drop the price of a Tactical to bring them in line with other troops, which I'm not advocating, but would be the correct way to balance the cornerstone model in the game.

I have the opposite opinion. The statline of the Tactical Marine is a 13 point model, and maybe even 14 like last edition. However, when it comes to equipment and upgrades, you can't make much of them. At some point you gotta cost them the same as Scouts, which is a little bonkers I'd think.

Plus Bolter Scouts aren't worth using either compared to the other loadouts so I think that helps further solidify my issue.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 20:55:04


Post by: Galas


I think bolters should remain as they are, but do 3 shoots instead of 2 in Rapid-Fire range.

This makes the space marine player interested in shoort-range shoting, where their S4 could matter more.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 21:06:45


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Formosa wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.


What about sisters, what about chaos, what about everything else that uses bolters, and space marines are good not because of bolters but in spite of them, tactical squads are usually considered mediocre due to many reasons, one of them is the Bolter.

But that's not why I would want them changed, I want them changed as Bolters poorly represent themselves compared to the fluff as I said in another thread I would like the Bolter tonbecome the short range death machine it should be.

Str4 ap- range 18" rapid fire 3 damage 1 special rule:"mass reactive" any to wound roll of 6+ increase the bootees damage by 1


Start over.

You want to redefine small arms such that you make 100% of models that use small arms irrelevant?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
...Eldar will never get sympathy from me. Ever. You guys in fact deserve a down edition. Not a popular opinion, but Eldar have had it too good for too long. I dont' want to hear about marine S or T, becuse it hasn't ever mattered and likely never will. The marine statline is a joke in a game with super efficient shooting, as has been the case since 5th.


I'm not asking for sympathy.

I'm asking you to stop using "there exists something that does this one thing better than Space Marines" as an excuse to suggest wildly unbalanced buffs to Space Marines.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 21:34:23


Post by: Martel732


As it turns out, nearly every list does a LOT better than space marines right now. GK are the exception because they have all the marine problems, in spades.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 21:53:03


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Unbalanced buffs? You have yet to show how it's not balanced besides saying it is.

I mean, I've got math on my side. Tactical Marines and Bolter Scouts lose firefights to units with the most basic arms in their army, even when taking special weapons into consideration. What would an Eldar player know? They only had it bad with the Index. Otherwise AT WORSE they were Tier 2.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 22:04:42


Post by: Formosa


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.


What about sisters, what about chaos, what about everything else that uses bolters, and space marines are good not because of bolters but in spite of them, tactical squads are usually considered mediocre due to many reasons, one of them is the Bolter.

But that's not why I would want them changed, I want them changed as Bolters poorly represent themselves compared to the fluff as I said in another thread I would like the Bolter tonbecome the short range death machine it should be.

Str4 ap- range 18" rapid fire 3 damage 1 special rule:"mass reactive" any to wound roll of 6+ increase the bootees damage by 1


Start over.

You want to redefine small arms such that you make 100% of models that use small arms irrelevant?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
...Eldar will never get sympathy from me. Ever. You guys in fact deserve a down edition. Not a popular opinion, but Eldar have had it too good for too long. I dont' want to hear about marine S or T, becuse it hasn't ever mattered and likely never will. The marine statline is a joke in a game with super efficient shooting, as has been the case since 5th.


I'm not asking for sympathy.

I'm asking you to stop using "there exists something that does this one thing better than Space Marines" as an excuse to suggest wildly unbalanced buffs to Space Marines.


Start over with what? what are you referring to when you say "you want to redefine small arms" I have not said anything of the kind, and how would it make 100% of models using small arms irrelevant, it would be very short ranged but also powerful at 9", explain yourself properly and dont leave one line answers, its an awful way to have a discussion.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 22:43:59


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Formosa wrote:
...Start over with what? what are you referring to when you say "you want to redefine small arms" I have not said anything of the kind, and how would it make 100% of models using small arms irrelevant, it would be very short ranged but also powerful at 9", explain yourself properly and dont leave one line answers, its an awful way to have a discussion.


I will attempt to elaborate: I expect sticking Rapid Fire 3 on weapons available to arbitrary Troops units to lead to a cascade effect by which small arms need to be buffed across the board to keep up. I expect the end result of this massive power spike to exacerbate the first-turn-wins problem characteristic of 8e where whoever's massive spurt of firepower shoots first destroys all infantry on the table, thereby making things like Tactical Marines effectively unplayable because they only actually get to shoot if you get first turn.

I don't see how tripling the amount of firepower coming out of small arms would improve the game for anyone.

Could you try and explain what you hope this change would achieve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Unbalanced buffs? You have yet to show how it's not balanced besides saying it is.

I mean, I've got math on my side. Tactical Marines and Bolter Scouts lose firefights to units with the most basic arms in their army, even when taking special weapons into consideration.


I'd love to see your math. At 12" and without cover I've got Tactical Marines handily beating everything I check them against, point for point, in a straight contest of small arms (they come close enough to tying Guardians (though they still win that firefight) that it'd come down to who shot first in practice, though).


What would an Eldar player know? They only had it bad with the Index. Otherwise AT WORSE they were Tier 2.


In the interests of full disclosure I am going to explain that I have a Corsair army, a Space Marine army, and an Inquisition army. Two of those have been mostly deleted and require me to hop books and homebrew content trying to scrabble together something that works. I'd love it if you took your "you play the wrong army to have any interest in balance" attitude somewhere else and tried to talk about the actual issues.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:05:49


Post by: Martel732


It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.

Here's the fundamental problem from the 90s till today: marines have poor damage/pt, and they are facing lists against which their durability advantages don't matter. They also usually have no way to make use of their CC stats, either. Because they are shot at range.

Get it?

You're going to sit here and tell me I've been doing wrong since the 90s and I'll likely respond by saying you are playing scrubs.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:13:57


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.


Why does the fact that I have an Eldar army serve as an argument why I have no perspective, ability to put aside whether my army wins or not, or interest in game balance, yet you're taking your own impartiality for granted?

Would you like to discuss Tactical Marines, or would you like to keep insulting me?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:14:43


Post by: Martel732


I edited it.

The Eldar in particular always have a magic gun to make marines go way en masse.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:15:40


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.

Here's the fundamental problem from the 90s till today: marines have poor damage/pt, and they are facing lists against which their durability advantages don't matter. They also usually have no way to make use of their CC stats, either. Because they are shot at range.

Get it?


And yet the math I've done and my experience on the tabletop suggests that Tactical Marines aren't any worse off than the vast majority of infantry units in the game, and are better off than most right now.

Can you quantify "poor damage/pt", or tell me about the basis you're using to come up with that conclusion?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:19:58


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.

Especially when he claims he did the math, but clearly didn't. They already lose to Conscripts and Infantry which I had literally proved earlier this week in any scenario besides only the Marines being in cover, and on occasion MAYBE tying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.


Why does the fact that I have an Eldar army serve as an argument why I have no perspective, ability to put aside whether my army wins or not, or interest in game balance, yet you're taking your own impartiality for granted?

Would you like to discuss Tactical Marines, or would you like to keep insulting me?

Eldar players don't know about balance. Simple as that.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:31:44


Post by: AnomanderRake


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.

Especially when he claims he did the math, but clearly didn't. They already lose to Conscripts and Infantry which I had literally proved earlier this week in any scenario besides only the Marines being in cover, and on occasion MAYBE tying it.


Marine v. Dire Avenger: 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 4+ armour save. 2/3*2/3*1/2 = 2/9 (0.22) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Five Marines (65pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 20/9 (2.22) wounds in a round of shooting.
Dire Avenger v. Marine: 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 3+ armour save. 6+ armour save when rend triggers. 2/3*((1/3*1/3)+(1/6*5/6)) = 1/6 (0.167) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Five Dire Avengers (60pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 10/6 (1.67) wounds in a round of shooting.

8% difference in points. 30% improvement in firepower.

Marine v. Shoota Boy: 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ armour save. 2/3*1/2*5/6 = 10/36 (0.278) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Five Marines (65pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 100/36 (2.78) unsaved wounds in a round of shooting.
Shoota Boy v. Marine: 5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 3+ armour save. 1/3*1/2*1/3 = 1/18 (0.0556) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Ten Shoota Boyz (70pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 20/18 (1.11) unsaved wounds in a round of shooting.

8% difference in points the other way. Marines are more than 100% up on effectiveness this time.

You want to keep telling me my association with the Eldar makes me a biased idiot or do you want to tell me what you're basing your claim that Marines lose small-arms firefights to all infantry on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.


Why does the fact that I have an Eldar army serve as an argument why I have no perspective, ability to put aside whether my army wins or not, or interest in game balance, yet you're taking your own impartiality for granted?

Would you like to discuss Tactical Marines, or would you like to keep insulting me?

Eldar players don't know about balance. Simple as that.


So you definitely want to keep insulting me instead of discussing the issue?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:34:28


Post by: Martel732


It's not just troop vs troop. That's the most favorable way to view marines. But the tac marine basically represents the entire marine list. My assault elements are tac marines with a jump pack. My heavy weapons are tac marines with a heavy weapon. These units have to go up against hyper-specialized units from other lists and just don't even come close to stacking up. Never have, never will. That's why most successful marine lists through the years rely on gimmicks that exploit an unintended mechanism. If you try to use marines as intended, you are looking at 80% loss rates if you are good at the game.

Now they are trying the same trick with primaris. I can't tell you how garbage primaris marines are, despite the proponents to the contrary. Marine absolutely can NOT afford a smaller model count. They lose board coverage AND firepower.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:36:23


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
It's not just troop vs troop. That's the most favorable way to view marines. But the tac marine basically represents the entire marine list. My assault elements are tac marines with a jump pack. My heavy weapons are tac marines with a heavy weapon. These units have to go up against hyper-specialized units from other lists and just don't even come close to stacking up.

Now they are trying the same trick with primaris. I can't tell you how garbage primaris marines are, despite the proponents to the contrary. Marine absolutely can NOT afford a smaller model count. They lose board coverage AND firepower.


...So how is buffing the bolter going to solve the broader problems you're having with the list generally?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:38:14


Post by: Martel732


It's called being thrown a bone. I don't know if it will help but GW's current paradigm for marines is NOT working. Enter the hordes of Dakka posters who claim they work "just fine". They are probably playing against scrubs who don't know how to abuse marines. Low model count, low OVERALL firepower, unviable CC options = dumpster fire.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/04 23:47:42


Post by: Darsath


Martel732 wrote:
It's called being thrown a bone. I don't know if it will help but GW's current paradigm for marines is NOT working. Enter the hordes of Dakka posters who claim they work "just fine". They are probably playing against scrubs who don't know how to abuse marines. Low model count, low OVERALL firepower, unviable CC options = dumpster fire.


Try playing Tau or Crons right now if you want the real definition of dumpster fire.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 00:08:22


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
It's called being thrown a bone. I don't know if it will help but GW's current paradigm for marines is NOT working. Enter the hordes of Dakka posters who claim they work "just fine". They are probably playing against scrubs who don't know how to abuse marines. Low model count, low OVERALL firepower, unviable CC options = dumpster fire.


I'm aware of your positions on things like "scrubs".

I don't find Marines lacking in overall firepower (though my army is built off a collection of models built for 30k, so the core of it is built more around the vehicles than the infantry). Having played (or tried to play) several different armies in 8th I find that while T4/3+ doesn't scare anyone and doesn't make for a frontline unit most of the time it does mean that if I park a Marine squad somewhere I can expect it to stay there. My T3/5+ Corsairs get turned into paste on the ground by casual stray shots (extra vehicle storm bolters, a couple of Gun Drones with nothing better to do, that kind of random extra few shots you have lying around when your big stuff is done), if someone wants to get a Devastator squad off an objective they have to commit actual firepower. T3/5+ infantry are a nuisance, unless you're getting them for 4pts/model and they're immune to morale. T4/3+ infantry are a target priority decision.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 00:11:52


Post by: fraser1191


I personally feel like the bolter is alright. But. It is lacking something. Maybe just give marines specifically 6s to hit give an extra hit and/or 6s to wound are 2 damage. They are trained with it and they are supposed to be "angels of death" so they specifically should be better with it


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 00:11:55


Post by: Martel732


T3 / + is better than you're giving credit for. At 4 ppm, morale is irrelevant. 12 squads of 10 of these guys covers all the holes in a DZ and is harder to kill than it looks because there's 120 of them! Also, they get that 5+ against most cheap weapons. 4+ if they are in cover, which is totally possible with 10 man squads.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 00:20:46


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
T3 / + is better than you're giving credit for. At 4 ppm, morale is irrelevant. 12 squads of 10 of these guys covers all the holes in a DZ and is harder to kill than it looks because there's 120 of them! Also, they get that 5+ against most cheap weapons. 4+ if they are in cover, which is totally possible with 10 man squads.


Yeah. And that isn't T3/5+ being good. That's 4pt models being good. T3/5+ (or even T3/4+) on Eldar infantry doesn't come on 4pt models, it comes on 8pt+ models. Which can't usually expect to survive past their initial swing.

A Scourge with a dark lance is going to get one shot. A Marine with a lascannon is going to get two or three at least.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 00:21:59


Post by: JNAProductions


Martel732 wrote:
T3 / + is better than you're giving credit for. At 4 ppm, morale is irrelevant. 12 squads of 10 of these guys covers all the holes in a DZ and is harder to kill than it looks because there's 120 of them! Also, they get that 5+ against most cheap weapons. 4+ if they are in cover, which is totally possible with 10 man squads.


Right... But he's talking about Corsairs. They are, what? 8 PPM?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 00:25:39


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Darsath wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's called being thrown a bone. I don't know if it will help but GW's current paradigm for marines is NOT working. Enter the hordes of Dakka posters who claim they work "just fine". They are probably playing against scrubs who don't know how to abuse marines. Low model count, low OVERALL firepower, unviable CC options = dumpster fire.


Try playing Tau or Crons right now if you want the real definition of dumpster fire.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing their index entries are trash. I'm a Necron AND AdMech player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.

Especially when he claims he did the math, but clearly didn't. They already lose to Conscripts and Infantry which I had literally proved earlier this week in any scenario besides only the Marines being in cover, and on occasion MAYBE tying it.


Marine v. Dire Avenger: 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 4+ armour save. 2/3*2/3*1/2 = 2/9 (0.22) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Five Marines (65pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 20/9 (2.22) wounds in a round of shooting.
Dire Avenger v. Marine: 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 3+ armour save. 6+ armour save when rend triggers. 2/3*((1/3*1/3)+(1/6*5/6)) = 1/6 (0.167) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Five Dire Avengers (60pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 10/6 (1.67) wounds in a round of shooting.

8% difference in points. 30% improvement in firepower.

Marine v. Shoota Boy: 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 6+ armour save. 2/3*1/2*5/6 = 10/36 (0.278) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Five Marines (65pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 100/36 (2.78) unsaved wounds in a round of shooting.
Shoota Boy v. Marine: 5+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 3+ armour save. 1/3*1/2*1/3 = 1/18 (0.0556) expected unsaved wounds/shot. Ten Shoota Boyz (70pts) at 12" range inflict an average of 20/18 (1.11) unsaved wounds in a round of shooting.

8% difference in points the other way. Marines are more than 100% up on effectiveness this time.

You want to keep telling me my association with the Eldar makes me a biased idiot or do you want to tell me what you're basing your claim that Marines lose small-arms firefights to all infantry on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's really hard to take an Eldar player seriously talking up the merits of a unit that the Eldar have been pimp smacking around since the mid 90s.


Why does the fact that I have an Eldar army serve as an argument why I have no perspective, ability to put aside whether my army wins or not, or interest in game balance, yet you're taking your own impartiality for granted?

Would you like to discuss Tactical Marines, or would you like to keep insulting me?

Eldar players don't know about balance. Simple as that.


So you definitely want to keep insulting me instead of discussing the issue?

Cute evaluation on the Dire Avengers, but how it works is that they fire at 18", and then run away. The Assault profile is a super neat tool. Also don't forget that the Exarch gets two of the guns. That or a 5++. Point is Marines aren't going to BE in Rapid Fire range for more than a round.
And that's just base rules for each unit. Once you add the Chapter Tactics and Craftworld Tactics, it's still not even a contest.

Also nobody is using Shoota Boyz because they're way too expensive as is, in the same manner I'd not have used Index Avengers. I'm ignoring index entries for the most part, and even then things like Fire Warriors and Necron Warriors are winning those fights.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 02:06:50


Post by: Grey Templar


 Blackie wrote:
IMHO bolt weapons are fine as they are. Stormbolters should be more expensive, 4-5 points instead of 2.


Hell to the feth NO!!!

My Grey Knights shouldn't be any more expensive than they already are.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 02:30:14


Post by: Wyldhunt


Let's all keep it civil folks. Taking shots at one another, especially over what armies they happen to play, isn't productive and only serves to distract from more useful discussion.

@SlayerFan
While I don't wish to turn this into another thread about the problems with tactical marines (which I acknowledge do exist), I believe it's important to keep the platform a weapon is on in mind when discussing that weapon. So if we want to say that shootas are superior to bolters, that's true enough in a vacuum, but let's also acknowledge that shootas are only available to models with pretty unimpressive BS, and many of those models tend to get killed off pretty quickly.

Also, how are the avengers running away after firing? Battle Focus doesn't do that any more, and using the stratagem that lets them move away after shooting seems like it would be a waste of resources most of the time. Unless you mean they'll get within 18" and shoot on their turn, take a single round of return fire, and then spend the rest of the game running away? In which case I'd argue we've entered into a bizarre realm of theory hammer.

But really, I'm not sure that making direct comparisons between units is what we're trying to discuss here. You can say special weapons are pointless because you can't get enough of them or whatever, I can point out that avengers don't get them at all. You can point out that strength scores don't matter on a unit that is better at shooting than punching and that our exarch can have two of our bolter equivalents, and I can point out that marine sergeants can pack significantly more impressive weapon options than an avenger exarch. That's all well and interesting, but is it really the point of the conversation here?

But steering back towards the topic of bolters...

* If we're talking about the effectiveness of bolters in a vacuum, we shouldn't be. A bolter wielded by a guardsman isn't really the same as a bolter wielded wielded by a space marine. Similarly, a shoota would be much more potent in the hands of a marine than in the hands of an ork.

*If we're here to discuss whether or not a bolter fits its fluff, I'd argue that it doesn't. Partly because bolter fluff is, "Space marines are the best and bolters are awesome. Watch us kill this wraith knight with our version of small arms fire!" And hey, I'm all for space marines taking a step closer to their fluff, but let's acknowledge that fluffy marines are going to be very different creatures from what normal marines are today. Personally, I feel like intercessors are pretty close to what I imagine a fluffy tactical marine looking like mechanically.

*If we're talking about the mechanical design of a bolter... meh? Tacticals have a problem, I agree, but I'm not sure that problem lies with the humble bolter. The bolter is essentially just a standard, boring rapidfire gun that wounds T3 targets more often than not, wounds space marines half the time, and hurts most vehicles a third of the time. Compared to the 41st millenium's version of a "basic" weapon, the lasgun, which wounds T3 targets half the time, marines a third of the time, and most vehicles only a sixth of the time. If you hold a bolter up to a lsgun or a bolt pistol up to a laspistol, the bolt weapons do appear to have a bit more kick to them. Which doesn't seem inappropriate.

*So with that last point in mind, what exactly is the problem with the bolter? Is it that we just don't think it does enough damage for its points? Because bolt weapons are pretty cheap and pack more punch than "common" human weapons. Is it that they don't feel special enough next to alien weapons? Because I'm all for cool rules on various weapons, but that reason does sound a little, "But my marines are supposed to be special though!" Is it that non-cheap infantry units just don't have a place in the game? Because that's a valid issue, but it's one that has its roots in much broader issues than bolters not being nifty enough.



Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 03:14:19


Post by: BaconCatBug


I think it would be nice if tacical marine bolters had the same profile as the Primaris Bolt Rifle, but since Primaris Marines only exist to gouge players, that won't happen.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 03:20:56


Post by: Galas


 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it would be nice if tacical marine bolters had the same profile as the Primaris Bolt Rifle, but since Primaris Marines only exist to gouge players, that won't happen.


Actually, just SQUAT normal marines, give the variety of special and heavy weapons to Primaris Squads, and call it a day.

Imagine a Tactical Primaris Squad. 30" -1AP bolters on 2A and 2W models, with Primaris Lasscannons and Primaris Plasmaguns.

Or better. Primaris Assault Marines with 2W and 3A per model, with options to have Powerclaws, or Powerfists, or Powerswords, etc...


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 03:28:01


Post by: GhostRecon


 Galas wrote:
I think bolters should remain as they are, but do 3 shoots instead of 2 in Rapid-Fire range.

This makes the space marine player interested in short-range shoting, where their S4 could matter more.


I like this suggestion. Another - as an alternative or second addition to the above Bolters buff for Tactical and Primaris Marines in particular - could be a unit-specific special rule, 'Bolter Drill': "Each time you make a hit roll of 6+ for a model with this ability firing a bolt weapon, that model can make another hit roll using the same weapon at the same target (these bonus attacks cannot themselves generate any further attacks). For the purposes of this ability, a bolt weapon is any weapon profile whose name includes the word ‘bolt’ (e.g. boltgun, bolt rifle, heavy bolter, boltstorm gauntlet."

Then modify the Imperial Fists one to at least 5+ (I'd even suggest adding a second part where if the IF unit didnt move in the preceding movement phase it improves their IF-specific Bolters drill Stratagem to a 4+)


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 03:59:12


Post by: Torga_DW


Wyldhunt wrote:
* If we're talking about the effectiveness of bolters in a vacuum, we shouldn't be. A bolter wielded by a guardsman isn't really the same as a bolter wielded wielded by a space marine. Similarly, a shoota would be much more potent in the hands of a marine than in the hands of an ork.


Although out of interest, in the case of the boltgun there is some cross-pollination in that other imperial armies (like guard) can take them in certain situations.


Wyldhunt wrote:
*If we're here to discuss whether or not a bolter fits its fluff, I'd argue that it doesn't. Partly because bolter fluff is, "Space marines are the best and bolters are awesome. Watch us kill this wraith knight with our version of small arms fire!" And hey, I'm all for space marines taking a step closer to their fluff, but let's acknowledge that fluffy marines are going to be very different creatures from what normal marines are today. Personally, I feel like intercessors are pretty close to what I imagine a fluffy tactical marine looking like mechanically.


The fluff is all over the place with most things, the problem is the difference so jarring compared to on-table performance. But part of the fluff is that marines are 'good' in some way, and if you go by the tabletop it's a completely different story. They're priced as if they behave like the fluff. To be actually competitive, though, most of the 'successful' marine builds over the years have been based around a small set of gimmicks. It would be nice if they could perform without specialized gimmicks, although that can be said for any army. Intercessors are basically good at sitting on a backfield objective and not dying as easily. But their dps potential is actually worse than an equivalent amount of tacticals. There's a reason primaris marines haven't been rocking the scene since they came out.


Wyldhunt wrote:
*If we're talking about the mechanical design of a bolter... meh? Tacticals have a problem, I agree, but I'm not sure that problem lies with the humble bolter. The bolter is essentially just a standard, boring rapidfire gun that wounds T3 targets more often than not, wounds space marines half the time, and hurts most vehicles a third of the time. Compared to the 41st millenium's version of a "basic" weapon, the lasgun, which wounds T3 targets half the time, marines a third of the time, and most vehicles only a sixth of the time. If you hold a bolter up to a lsgun or a bolt pistol up to a laspistol, the bolt weapons do appear to have a bit more kick to them. Which doesn't seem inappropriate.


The problem is their ranged weapon, ie the bolter. For their price, they put out marginally better shooting at a cost of significantly reduced weight of fire. Why are we comparing boltguns to lasguns? Is it for fluff reasons? Because if we go off the tabletop, the average basic weapon is s4 + special rules. Bolt guns do have a 'bit more kick' to them compared to lasguns, the question is it enough for the price they pay? My answer here is no - they get 33% of the shots for a 33% increase in chance to both hit and wound, with a 33% increased chance at making saves at a cost of >300% more.


Wyldhunt wrote:
*So with that last point in mind, what exactly is the problem with the bolter? Is it that we just don't think it does enough damage for its points? Because bolt weapons are pretty cheap and pack more punch than "common" human weapons. Is it that they don't feel special enough next to alien weapons? Because I'm all for cool rules on various weapons, but that reason does sound a little, "But my marines are supposed to be special though!" Is it that non-cheap infantry units just don't have a place in the game? Because that's a valid issue, but it's one that has its roots in much broader issues than bolters not being nifty enough.


Yeah, i would say the problem is, as you say you can't isolate the weapon easily and need to look at the platform. And for the cost of the platform, it doesn't do enough damage for it's points. I don't believe that non-cheap infantry units have no place in the game, i just think they've been poorly implemented since forever. I don't look at other armies weapons out of jealousy, but to see what 'cheaper' units get in comparison and it's pretty much all been S4 since 3rd edition.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 04:35:58


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Galas wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it would be nice if tacical marine bolters had the same profile as the Primaris Bolt Rifle, but since Primaris Marines only exist to gouge players, that won't happen.


Actually, just SQUAT normal marines, give the variety of special and heavy weapons to Primaris Squads, and call it a day.

Imagine a Tactical Primaris Squad. 30" -1AP bolters on 2A and 2W models, with Primaris Lasscannons and Primaris Plasmaguns.

Or better. Primaris Assault Marines with 2W and 3A per model, with options to have Powerclaws, or Powerfists, or Powerswords, etc...
Ya know what, I wouldn't mind seeing this and I am sure this is what GW want to do. Squat the rules for manlette marines and officially instruct people to use their old kits as counts-as.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 04:54:18


Post by: AnomanderRake


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Galas wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it would be nice if tacical marine bolters had the same profile as the Primaris Bolt Rifle, but since Primaris Marines only exist to gouge players, that won't happen.


Actually, just SQUAT normal marines, give the variety of special and heavy weapons to Primaris Squads, and call it a day.

Imagine a Tactical Primaris Squad. 30" -1AP bolters on 2A and 2W models, with Primaris Lasscannons and Primaris Plasmaguns.

Or better. Primaris Assault Marines with 2W and 3A per model, with options to have Powerclaws, or Powerfists, or Powerswords, etc...
Ya know what, I wouldn't mind seeing this and I am sure this is what GW want to do. Squat the rules for manlette marines and officially instruct people to use their old kits as counts-as.


Let me put them in all the rest of the vehicles and I wouldn't complain too much.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 06:07:41


Post by: skchsan


Another potential solution is to bump it up to S5, much like heavy bolter. All bolt weapons are supposed to use the same rounds as per fluff. HB should just be a bolt weapon with better range and higher rate of fire.

Having said, bumping it up to S5 would affect only the following without breaking the game:
-has no change against T3 (S4 and S5 both wounds on 3+)
-improved dmg against T4's
-bolter wounds on 5+ against T8's.

Note only necrons, and SM/CSM has base troops with T4. Above proposal will guarantee that bolters are always stronger than flashlights against T8's. Then bolters can truly become a weapon thats (fairly) reliable against all possible enemies.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 06:15:02


Post by: greatbigtree


Martel732 wrote:
T3 / + is better than you're giving credit for. At 4 ppm, morale is irrelevant. 12 squads of 10 of these guys covers all the holes in a DZ and is harder to kill than it looks because there's 120 of them! Also, they get that 5+ against most cheap weapons. 4+ if they are in cover, which is totally possible with 10 man squads.


Yes it goes on and on my friends! Someone started calling the other people scrubs, while they clearly can't figure out how to play Marines because... This is the refrain that doesn't end...

If Marines need improvement, it comes at fixing the price of their basic model. It is a poor craftsman that blames their tools. If Marines are shoehorned into a single style of play, so is Imperial Guard. So is Chaos. So is anyone. Changing a bolter's profile doesn't change Guard's ability to fill a DZ. It doesn't change the access to cheap and effective artillery.

Marines are ok. There are other units that are too good / useful for their cost. The concept that a Tactical marine should be better at everything is flawed. Tactical marines don't engage the enemy's strength and overcome it. They engage their weakness, and overcome it. If a person can't wrap their head around that, they need to git gud, not blame other Marine players for figuring out what they can't, nor should they blame the opponents of said players, that know how to play their army.

There is a clearly false assumption of correctness. One might think, that if they can't figure out how to win, they might start taking the advice of others.


Guard play revolves around "Favourable Attrition". Trading pieces. Protecting the heavy hitters with cheap filler. This edition has made that overly easy. The solution is to make it easier for other armies to get to the heavy hitters. The solution is to make filler more expensive, because it's job isn't to be good, but to create favorable trades. Maintaining effectiveness despite losses. As Guardsmen / Conscripts go up in cost, their "defensive value per point" goes down.

That fixes IG's "OP-Ness" right now, without changing bolters.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 06:22:23


Post by: Formosa


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
...Start over with what? what are you referring to when you say "you want to redefine small arms" I have not said anything of the kind, and how would it make 100% of models using small arms irrelevant, it would be very short ranged but also powerful at 9", explain yourself properly and dont leave one line answers, its an awful way to have a discussion.


I will attempt to elaborate: I expect sticking Rapid Fire 3 on weapons available to arbitrary Troops units to lead to a cascade effect by which small arms need to be buffed across the board to keep up. I expect the end result of this massive power spike to exacerbate the first-turn-wins problem characteristic of 8e where whoever's massive spurt of firepower shoots first destroys all infantry on the table, thereby making things like Tactical Marines effectively unplayable because they only actually get to shoot if you get first turn.

I don't see how tripling the amount of firepower coming out of small arms would improve the game for anyone.

Could you try and explain what you hope this change would achieve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Unbalanced buffs? You have yet to show how it's not balanced besides saying it is.

I mean, I've got math on my side. Tactical Marines and Bolter Scouts lose firefights to units with the most basic arms in their army, even when taking special weapons into consideration.


I'd love to see your math. At 12" and without cover I've got Tactical Marines handily beating everything I check them against, point for point, in a straight contest of small arms (they come close enough to tying Guardians (though they still win that firefight) that it'd come down to who shot first in practice, though).


What would an Eldar player know? They only had it bad with the Index. Otherwise AT WORSE they were Tier 2.


In the interests of full disclosure I am going to explain that I have a Corsair army, a Space Marine army, and an Inquisition army. Two of those have been mostly deleted and require me to hop books and homebrew content trying to scrabble together something that works. I'd love it if you took your "you play the wrong army to have any interest in balance" attitude somewhere else and tried to talk about the actual issues.


Sure, having range 18" means that your maines are put ranged by most small arms in the game, except eldar shurikins and ork shootas, both of which are assault 2 not rapid fire, so most armies with still have the edge when it comes to this, hardly game breaking, but what it would mean is that when the marine/chaos/sisters unit gets within 9", which isn't easy against most dedicated shooting armies or mobile armies, then you rip them apart, something a lot of Mathhammer people always forget is that in this game a LOT of other factors matter, a rapid fire 3 Bolter would not break the game in any way.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 06:48:57


Post by: Torga_DW


Out of interest, i put the numbers of marines vs guard into excel to get a better idea of the differences. I used standard rounding to the nearest number, as you can't roll a decimal.

10 guardsmen (40 points) vs 10 marines (130 points), marines are 325% the cost of the guard.
10 guardsmen shoot: 5 hits, 10 marines shoot: 7 hit, marines hit 140%
5 guardsmen hit: 2 wound, 7 marines hit: 5 wound, marines wound 250%
2 guardsmen wound: 1 marine saves, 5 Marines wound: 2 guardsmen save, marines save 200%
end result: 1 dead marine, 3 dead guardsmen. Marines have suffered 33% of the casualties. Marines have lost 108% in relative points.
Guardsmen are now operating at 70% of their initial strength, marines are operating at 90%.
But guard will be subject to morale, and have a (worst case scenario) 16.5% chance to lose 2 more guys.
end result: 1 dead marine, 5 dead guardsmen. Marines have suffered 20% of the casualties. Marines have lost 65% in relative points.
Guardsmen are now operating at 50% of their initial strength, marines are operating at 90%.


So i wondered what would happen if the points were a little more even:

30 guardsmen (120 points) vs 10 marines (130 points), marines are 108% the cost of guard.
30 guardsmen shoot: 15 hits, marines shoot: 7 hit, marines cause hit 47% hits
15 guardsmen hit: 5 wound, 7 marines hit: 5 wound, marines cause 100% identical wounds
5 guardsmen wound: 3 marines save, 5 marines wound: 2 guardsmen save, marines save 150%
end result: 2 dead marines, 3 dead guardsmen. Marines have suffered 67% of the casualties. Marines have lost 217% in relative points.
Guardsmen are now operating at 90% of their initial strength, marines are operating at 80%.
Guard are still subject to morale whereas marines are not. again, 16.5% chance to lose 2 more guys.
end result: 2 dead marines, 5 dead guardsmen. Marines have suffered 40% of the casualties. Marines have lost 113% in relative points.
Guardsmen are now operating at 83% of their initial strength, marines are operating at 80%.

So, interesting results. When there's a roughly equal number of points involved (and depending on who shoots first), marines need the guard to catastrophically fail their morale check just to lose roughly the same amount of performance *and* marines still end up losing more in equivalent points. If guard pass their morale check, marines do worse in performance and way worse in relative points.

edit: and assuming 'magic dice' scenarios, the guard can theoretically wipe out the marines, whereas the marines cannot do the same, even assuming catastrophic morale failures.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 08:10:22


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wyldhunt wrote:
Let's all keep it civil folks. Taking shots at one another, especially over what armies they happen to play, isn't productive and only serves to distract from more useful discussion.

@SlayerFan
While I don't wish to turn this into another thread about the problems with tactical marines (which I acknowledge do exist), I believe it's important to keep the platform a weapon is on in mind when discussing that weapon. So if we want to say that shootas are superior to bolters, that's true enough in a vacuum, but let's also acknowledge that shootas are only available to models with pretty unimpressive BS, and many of those models tend to get killed off pretty quickly.

Also, how are the avengers running away after firing? Battle Focus doesn't do that any more, and using the stratagem that lets them move away after shooting seems like it would be a waste of resources most of the time. Unless you mean they'll get within 18" and shoot on their turn, take a single round of return fire, and then spend the rest of the game running away? In which case I'd argue we've entered into a bizarre realm of theory hammer.

But really, I'm not sure that making direct comparisons between units is what we're trying to discuss here. You can say special weapons are pointless because you can't get enough of them or whatever, I can point out that avengers don't get them at all. You can point out that strength scores don't matter on a unit that is better at shooting than punching and that our exarch can have two of our bolter equivalents, and I can point out that marine sergeants can pack significantly more impressive weapon options than an avenger exarch. That's all well and interesting, but is it really the point of the conversation here?

But steering back towards the topic of bolters...

* If we're talking about the effectiveness of bolters in a vacuum, we shouldn't be. A bolter wielded by a guardsman isn't really the same as a bolter wielded wielded by a space marine. Similarly, a shoota would be much more potent in the hands of a marine than in the hands of an ork.

*If we're here to discuss whether or not a bolter fits its fluff, I'd argue that it doesn't. Partly because bolter fluff is, "Space marines are the best and bolters are awesome. Watch us kill this wraith knight with our version of small arms fire!" And hey, I'm all for space marines taking a step closer to their fluff, but let's acknowledge that fluffy marines are going to be very different creatures from what normal marines are today. Personally, I feel like intercessors are pretty close to what I imagine a fluffy tactical marine looking like mechanically.

*If we're talking about the mechanical design of a bolter... meh? Tacticals have a problem, I agree, but I'm not sure that problem lies with the humble bolter. The bolter is essentially just a standard, boring rapidfire gun that wounds T3 targets more often than not, wounds space marines half the time, and hurts most vehicles a third of the time. Compared to the 41st millenium's version of a "basic" weapon, the lasgun, which wounds T3 targets half the time, marines a third of the time, and most vehicles only a sixth of the time. If you hold a bolter up to a lsgun or a bolt pistol up to a laspistol, the bolt weapons do appear to have a bit more kick to them. Which doesn't seem inappropriate.

*So with that last point in mind, what exactly is the problem with the bolter? Is it that we just don't think it does enough damage for its points? Because bolt weapons are pretty cheap and pack more punch than "common" human weapons. Is it that they don't feel special enough next to alien weapons? Because I'm all for cool rules on various weapons, but that reason does sound a little, "But my marines are supposed to be special though!" Is it that non-cheap infantry units just don't have a place in the game? Because that's a valid issue, but it's one that has its roots in much broader issues than bolters not being nifty enough.


I already went over the platform issue. When you look at the base units that carry them like Sisters and Chaos Marines and Chosen and Sternguard...you get the point...the weapon is readily replaced by anything else. That's why I'm advocating a change to the Bolter on all platforms.
In the same manner, it doesn't matter the platform for either the Avenger Shuriken Catapult or Shoota. They're strictly better weapons, with the former being the worst offender. However, it's just a good base weapon and nobody would call it broken, and nobody would call Dire Avengers bad, as the Dire Avenger platform is solid and has a specified role that it does. Generalist is garbage, so you gotta make the generalist just a little more attractive.

So while tackling that issue you gotta ignore the Tactical Marine unit entry, which has its own issues. Look at the OTHER Bolter units, like Scouts (who you never take Bolters on), Sisters (who you take as cheaper bodies for more special weapon survivability), Sternguard and Chosen (where everything is replaced by a special weapon or Combi, and the Sternguard have a better Bolter to begin with!), and Biker varieties (where the Special Weapon proliferation does most of the work, though the edition has treated anything twinlinked a little better and allows it fired with anything else)

In this case, there isn't a platform that the Bolter is attractive at all, and the Storm Bolter is barely making that mark. So obviously we need to ask the following question. On which unit does the proposed fix break an army or unit? I can't find any reasonable argument it breaks Marines or Sisters, other than some people are simply adverse to change and keeping the status quo. I'm ignoring fluff overall, otherwise all Marines WOULD have the Primaris statline.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 16:13:16


Post by: Grey Templar


 skchsan wrote:
Another potential solution is to bump it up to S5, much like heavy bolter. All bolt weapons are supposed to use the same rounds as per fluff. HB should just be a bolt weapon with better range and higher rate of fire.

Having said, bumping it up to S5 would affect only the following without breaking the game:
-has no change against T3 (S4 and S5 both wounds on 3+)
-improved dmg against T4's
-bolter wounds on 5+ against T8's.

Note only necrons, and SM/CSM has base troops with T4. Above proposal will guarantee that bolters are always stronger than flashlights against T8's. Then bolters can truly become a weapon thats (fairly) reliable against all possible enemies.


That's not true.

There are multiple calibers of bolt shells. The typical bolter is, usually, .75 cal. Though there are other calibers for bolters(and pistols). Heavy bolters are 1.0cal. Vulcan Mega Bolters are likely in the 5.0cal range. And even different firearms which use the same round can have very different killing power. If a pistol and rifle use the same bullet, the rifle will have much more significant power due to the longer barrel as it puts more energy into the bullet.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 16:49:35


Post by: Wyldhunt


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I already went over the platform issue. When you look at the base units that carry them like Sisters and Chaos Marines and Chosen and Sternguard...you get the point...the weapon is readily replaced by anything else. That's why I'm advocating a change to the Bolter on all platforms.
In the same manner, it doesn't matter the platform for either the Avenger Shuriken Catapult or Shoota. They're strictly better weapons, with the former being the worst offender. However, it's just a good base weapon and nobody would call it broken, and nobody would call Dire Avengers bad, as the Dire Avenger platform is solid and has a specified role that it does. Generalist is garbage, so you gotta make the generalist just a little more attractive.

So while tackling that issue you gotta ignore the Tactical Marine unit entry, which has its own issues. Look at the OTHER Bolter units, like Scouts (who you never take Bolters on), Sisters (who you take as cheaper bodies for more special weapon survivability), Sternguard and Chosen (where everything is replaced by a special weapon or Combi, and the Sternguard have a better Bolter to begin with!), and Biker varieties (where the Special Weapon proliferation does most of the work, though the edition has treated anything twinlinked a little better and allows it fired with anything else)

In this case, there isn't a platform that the Bolter is attractive at all, and the Storm Bolter is barely making that mark. So obviously we need to ask the following question. On which unit does the proposed fix break an army or unit? I can't find any reasonable argument it breaks Marines or Sisters, other than some people are simply adverse to change and keeping the status quo. I'm ignoring fluff overall, otherwise all Marines WOULD have the Primaris statline.


Some fair points there. To be clear, I'm not opposed to modifying the bolter. I even rather like some of the changes that have been proposed. However, I think that divorcing the weapon from its platforms might be the wrong approach, even if the weapon isn't "good" on any of its current platforms. What I mean is that, ideally, I'd like for given unit/option to not only be good for its points but to also fit the fluff-based "feel" of the unit in question. I imagine that's something we'd all be in favor of. So my concern with making the bolter better in a vacuum is that there are certain considerations that might not be... er... considered in that process. I'd want to make sure that a change made with marines in mind doesn't break sisters or give a commissar access to an overly good option, for instance. I'd want to make sure that a given improvement to a bolter doesn't discourage marines from ever getting closer to the enemy. I'd want the change to capture the "feel" of the weapon. All of which is, I'm sure, quite doable.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/05 16:56:09


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


I only advocated ignoring a few key platforms. The Chaos Marine and Tactical Marine are the prime ones to ignore because the unit entries themselves are redundant and need serious work.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 19:20:22


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Formosa wrote:
...Sure, having range 18" means that your maines are put ranged by most small arms in the game, except eldar shurikins and ork shootas, both of which are assault 2 not rapid fire, so most armies with still have the edge when it comes to this, hardly game breaking, but what it would mean is that when the marine/chaos/sisters unit gets within 9", which isn't easy against most dedicated shooting armies or mobile armies, then you rip them apart, something a lot of Mathhammer people always forget is that in this game a LOT of other factors matter, a rapid fire 3 Bolter would not break the game in any way.


I'm not sure you're using Rapid Fire to mean what I think it means. Last I checked "Rapid Fire 3" meant three shots at full range, six at half range.

I would ask that you try and consider some of the spill-over effects from up and tripling the firepower of a unit that isn't in that bad a place to begin with. Are you proposing making Storm Bolters (right now effectively two bolters) Rapid Fire 6? Are you proposing giving Sternguard Rapid Fire 3 weapons with -2AP? Are you proposing giving the Hurricane Bolter (right now 6 bolters strapped together) 36 shots at 9" range?

And the next question following on from this is what you're expecting other small arms in the game to do if you're going to throw something this huge at Marines without a significant points jump. If you've declared that in this play environment a BS3+/T4/Sv3+ model with a S4 Rapid Fire 3 weapon should cost 13pts what can you call a T3/Sv4+ model with a S4/Assault 2 weapon at 12pts other than utter trash?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 20:15:11


Post by: fraser1191


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
...Sure, having range 18" means that your maines are put ranged by most small arms in the game, except eldar shurikins and ork shootas, both of which are assault 2 not rapid fire, so most armies with still have the edge when it comes to this, hardly game breaking, but what it would mean is that when the marine/chaos/sisters unit gets within 9", which isn't easy against most dedicated shooting armies or mobile armies, then you rip them apart, something a lot of Mathhammer people always forget is that in this game a LOT of other factors matter, a rapid fire 3 Bolter would not break the game in any way.


I'm not sure you're using Rapid Fire to mean what I think it means. Last I checked "Rapid Fire 3" meant three shots at full range, six at half range.

I would ask that you try and consider some of the spill-over effects from up and tripling the firepower of a unit that isn't in that bad a place to begin with. Are you proposing making Storm Bolters (right now effectively two bolters) Rapid Fire 6? Are you proposing giving Sternguard Rapid Fire 3 weapons with -2AP? Are you proposing giving the Hurricane Bolter (right now 6 bolters strapped together) 36 shots at 9" range?

And the next question following on from this is what you're expecting other small arms in the game to do if you're going to throw something this huge at Marines without a significant points jump. If you've declared that in this play environment a BS3+/T4/Sv3+ model with a S4 Rapid Fire 3 weapon should cost 13pts what can you call a T3/Sv4+ model with a S4/Assault 2 weapon at 12pts other than utter trash?


Lol if a single bolter is rapid fire 3 a hurricane bolter is rapid fire 18 and a stormraven has 2 that's 72 shots at half


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 20:41:56


Post by: Martel732


It's just easier to make marines and their upgrades cheaper.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 20:49:33


Post by: skchsan


Martel732 wrote:
It's just easier to make marines and their upgrades cheaper.


Kind of like IG's weapon cost difference for BS3 and BS4?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 20:59:26


Post by: Martel732


They did that because the scions were already undercosted and they just adjusted the cost for the one weapon they were spamming.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 21:01:04


Post by: Xenomancers


 Grey Templar wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Another potential solution is to bump it up to S5, much like heavy bolter. All bolt weapons are supposed to use the same rounds as per fluff. HB should just be a bolt weapon with better range and higher rate of fire.

Having said, bumping it up to S5 would affect only the following without breaking the game:
-has no change against T3 (S4 and S5 both wounds on 3+)
-improved dmg against T4's
-bolter wounds on 5+ against T8's.

Note only necrons, and SM/CSM has base troops with T4. Above proposal will guarantee that bolters are always stronger than flashlights against T8's. Then bolters can truly become a weapon thats (fairly) reliable against all possible enemies.


That's not true.

There are multiple calibers of bolt shells. The typical bolter is, usually, .75 cal. Though there are other calibers for bolters(and pistols). Heavy bolters are 1.0cal. Vulcan Mega Bolters are likely in the 5.0cal range. And even different firearms which use the same round can have very different killing power. If a pistol and rifle use the same bullet, the rifle will have much more significant power due to the longer barrel as it puts more energy into the bullet.

.75 rocket propelled automatic grenade launcher. Str 4 rapid fire - 0 ap. It just doesn't sound right does it?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 21:02:31


Post by: Martel732


Modern-day rifles with AP ammo are more effective vs humans in flak armor than boltguns are in this genre. Whatever. I don't care. But if bolters are gonna be weak sauce, charge accordingly.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 21:19:07


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
Modern-day rifles with AP ammo are more effective vs humans in flak armor than boltguns are in this genre. Whatever. I don't care. But if bolters are gonna be weak sauce, charge accordingly.

At some point you can't make the weapon any free-er.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 21:19:49


Post by: Martel732


You make the units forced to take them cheaper. Or give the bolter a negative cost.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/06 22:56:58


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
...Sure, having range 18" means that your maines are put ranged by most small arms in the game, except eldar shurikins and ork shootas, both of which are assault 2 not rapid fire, so most armies with still have the edge when it comes to this, hardly game breaking, but what it would mean is that when the marine/chaos/sisters unit gets within 9", which isn't easy against most dedicated shooting armies or mobile armies, then you rip them apart, something a lot of Mathhammer people always forget is that in this game a LOT of other factors matter, a rapid fire 3 Bolter would not break the game in any way.


I'm not sure you're using Rapid Fire to mean what I think it means. Last I checked "Rapid Fire 3" meant three shots at full range, six at half range.

I would ask that you try and consider some of the spill-over effects from up and tripling the firepower of a unit that isn't in that bad a place to begin with. Are you proposing making Storm Bolters (right now effectively two bolters) Rapid Fire 6? Are you proposing giving Sternguard Rapid Fire 3 weapons with -2AP? Are you proposing giving the Hurricane Bolter (right now 6 bolters strapped together) 36 shots at 9" range?

And the next question following on from this is what you're expecting other small arms in the game to do if you're going to throw something this huge at Marines without a significant points jump. If you've declared that in this play environment a BS3+/T4/Sv3+ model with a S4 Rapid Fire 3 weapon should cost 13pts what can you call a T3/Sv4+ model with a S4/Assault 2 weapon at 12pts other than utter trash?

I think they meant it fires three shots at Rapid Fire range. Doesn't entirely make sense since it isn't the kind of weapon spraying bullets everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Modern-day rifles with AP ammo are more effective vs humans in flak armor than boltguns are in this genre. Whatever. I don't care. But if bolters are gonna be weak sauce, charge accordingly.

You can only bump the forced Bolter users down so far. Tactical Marines and Chaos Marines become 12, Bolter Scouts 10, Sisters 10...it becomes bonkers and ridiculous. It's easier just to buff the base weapon like the suggestions of last edition (which the most proposed seemed to be rerolls of 1 to wound).

That's why with the modern system of armor modifiers, I wanted a unique way to make armor less powerful against the Bolter, but without taking rules from anyone else.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/07 00:51:25


Post by: sennacherib


This is a needless post. Bolt weapons are fine.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/07 01:16:55


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 sennacherib wrote:
This is a needless post. Bolt weapons are fine.

Then defend your position.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/07 02:31:47


Post by: Cothonian


 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.


Pretty much my opinion on the matter as well.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/08 18:02:16


Post by: Bharring


Or take a Special or Heavy alongside those bolters.

The Shuriken Catapault is the better comparison. That's the basic troop weapon at about the same level. Lose the 1 shot at 24", gain the pseudorending.

The Avenger Shuriken Catapault is more in the Storm Bolter range. It's got 6" less range, and 2 fewer shots within 12", but it pseudorends.

The comparisons have been done to death.

Without 7E BattleFocus, Marines win even if the DAs get the alpha. By a lot. With 8thE, Marines win even if they sit outside 12", but in cover. It was close when Marines couldn't get within 12" each turn, but now they only have to close 6" - which is their base movement. It's not even close.

For hard targets, Avengers outshoot naked Marines, but die much faster. Against small arms - such as boltguns - *twice* as fast. When it was 7 DAs vs 5 PG/Combi Marines, the Marines had better shooting but some tradeoffs:
-Gets Hot on every Plasma shot
-Need to position so Plasma isn't killed early
-Combi is one-use

With the index, it became 5DAs vs 5 PG/Combi Tacs, and all drawbacks changed. Combis aren't one-use anymore. Plasma doesn't Gets Hot at S7. Ablative Wounds are guarenteed now. It's now 7DAs vs 5 Tacs, so the old math comes back. Except now, Tacs don't have those drawbacks.

If you want to kill Guard or Orkz or other light targets, the ASC is an equal tradeoff (1 less shot 18-24", 1 more at 12-18").

If you want to carry Melta or Flamer or Grav, DAs have no eqivelent. If you want to carry Lascannons or MLs or whatever, DAs can't.

If you want to give them a CC weapon, Marines add it for 4 points. DAs swap out their 4point weapon for a 4point CC weapon.

They can't even hold a Tac squad in CC - 5 Tacs will beat 10 DAs. Much less a min ASM squad or any other skirmishers. They aren't that much better than Guardsmen in CC, whereas Marines are.

As for the "easy access to a 5++", that's 24 points you're spending to upgrade your Exarch to have 0 shooting. At 5-mans, that's a LOT of lost dakka.

DAs are a little overtuned. Probably just need to pay 10pts for the Exarch again. But the ASC vs Bolter isn't the problem.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/08 18:34:24


Post by: Martel732


After playing against necrons of all lists, I think the bolter's biggest problem is GEQs. Especially the heavy bolter. Heavy bolter is magnificient vs necrons, but crap vs geqs. Red flags galore.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/08 21:06:51


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
After playing against necrons of all lists, I think the bolter's biggest problem is GEQs. Especially the heavy bolter. Heavy bolter is magnificient vs necrons, but crap vs geqs. Red flags galore.


The thing that's most made Guardsman-spam take off in 8th is the removal of the template weapons that used to be the efficient way to up and delete huge chunks of them. I'd rather see a special/heavy weapon introduced that's a more cost-effective tool for dealing with light infantry (storm bolters, grenade launchers, bring back the rotor cannon from 30k...) to plug the hole in the arsenal, as opposed to changes to the bolter.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/08 21:12:25


Post by: Bharring


KILL THEM WITH FIRE!

That translates to "And buff the basic Flamer" in non-caps-speak.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/08 21:15:15


Post by: Xenomancers


This is a pretty cool idea. For all bolter weapons if you deal an unsaved wound ad an additional str 3 auto hit to the unit. To represent the explosion on the round on vehicals and over penetration on infantry.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/08 23:59:52


Post by: Wyldhunt


 Xenomancers wrote:
This is a pretty cool idea. For all bolter weapons if you deal an unsaved wound ad an additional str 3 auto hit to the unit. To represent the explosion on the round on vehicals and over penetration on infantry.


Hmm. That is neat. Does the math work out on that in a desirable fashion? 5 marines shoot 10 shots at some guardsmen. They generate 6 ish hits (for the sake of easy math) which results in 4 wounds which results in about 3 dead guardsmen. This results in 3 bonus hits that will wound 1.5 times and kill one guardsman. Not amazing, but feels good.

6 hits against a chaos marine squad gives you 3 wounds, 1 dead chaos marine, 1 bonus hit, 1/3rd of a wound, and 1/9ths of a dead chaos marine. So not very useful.

6 hits against a rhino gives you 2 wounds, maybe 1 unsaved wound, 1 bonus hit, 1/6th of a wound, 1/18th of an extra hull point.

So I feel like this rule won't actually be very useful, but it also seems like it would feel good when it does work. And that rare time that you bsaically double your casualty count and evaporate a whole swarm of hormagaunts is going to feel pretty darn good. Would it be annoying to resolve though? For a bolter marine squad, it isn't too bad, but what about when you have to roll that extra to-wound roll and armor save and feel no pain roll each time a random drop pod or vehicle-mounted storm bolter tosses a couple of shots at you? You're almost doubling the time it takes to resolve a given bolt weapon's attacks.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 01:52:06


Post by: pelicaniforce


Yeah, as regards drop pods et al, I don't like extra rolls for any basic weapon. It seems very consistent that bladestorm and gauss happened on a six on a normal to wound roll and that they didn't trigger a special kind of roll or reroll. They also happened on the wound roll instead of the hit roll, since things that triggered on a hit roll could force a second pool of special wound rolls.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 03:38:30


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Or take a Special or Heavy alongside those bolters.

The Shuriken Catapault is the better comparison. That's the basic troop weapon at about the same level. Lose the 1 shot at 24", gain the pseudorending.

The Avenger Shuriken Catapault is more in the Storm Bolter range. It's got 6" less range, and 2 fewer shots within 12", but it pseudorends.

The comparisons have been done to death.

Without 7E BattleFocus, Marines win even if the DAs get the alpha. By a lot. With 8thE, Marines win even if they sit outside 12", but in cover. It was close when Marines couldn't get within 12" each turn, but now they only have to close 6" - which is their base movement. It's not even close.

For hard targets, Avengers outshoot naked Marines, but die much faster. Against small arms - such as boltguns - *twice* as fast. When it was 7 DAs vs 5 PG/Combi Marines, the Marines had better shooting but some tradeoffs:
-Gets Hot on every Plasma shot
-Need to position so Plasma isn't killed early
-Combi is one-use

With the index, it became 5DAs vs 5 PG/Combi Tacs, and all drawbacks changed. Combis aren't one-use anymore. Plasma doesn't Gets Hot at S7. Ablative Wounds are guarenteed now. It's now 7DAs vs 5 Tacs, so the old math comes back. Except now, Tacs don't have those drawbacks.

If you want to kill Guard or Orkz or other light targets, the ASC is an equal tradeoff (1 less shot 18-24", 1 more at 12-18").

If you want to carry Melta or Flamer or Grav, DAs have no eqivelent. If you want to carry Lascannons or MLs or whatever, DAs can't.

If you want to give them a CC weapon, Marines add it for 4 points. DAs swap out their 4point weapon for a 4point CC weapon.

They can't even hold a Tac squad in CC - 5 Tacs will beat 10 DAs. Much less a min ASM squad or any other skirmishers. They aren't that much better than Guardsmen in CC, whereas Marines are.

As for the "easy access to a 5++", that's 24 points you're spending to upgrade your Exarch to have 0 shooting. At 5-mans, that's a LOT of lost dakka.

DAs are a little overtuned. Probably just need to pay 10pts for the Exarch again. But the ASC vs Bolter isn't the problem.

I'll explain why all that is wrong when I leave work, but I want to nitpick the part where you say that the Avenger Shuriken Catapult isn't comparable to the Bolter and the regular one is.

That's completely incorrect. The regular Shuriken Catapult is more comparable to the Shotgun Scouts carry (you choose between Bladestorm or S5 at 6" or less), on top of Guardians being more comparable to Scouts anyway.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 14:38:31


Post by: Bharring


And Scouts can choose either the Boltgun or the Shotgun (or Sniper Rifles).

Guardians, unlike Scouts and Tac Marines, really can't endure being within 12" of the enemy. I'd rather have the Shuriken Catapault on my Tacs and Scouts, and the Boltgun on my Guardians - because they could do a midfield job so much better with that, but my Scouts and Marines want to get close.

Scouts make better foils for Guardians than Tac Marines, and Tac Marines make better foils for DAs.

The comparison is best with a Plas/CombiPlas Tac squad vs DAs, because they're both volume of fire with an anti-Elite bent. At a per-point level, that's 5 Tacs vs 7 DAs. About the same firepower. About the same survivability. They actually compare, math-wise, quite well. DAs are now a little ahead (if they cost 13 ppm or had to pay for the Exarch, I think it'd be even), as long as you don't look at CC options.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 14:46:35


Post by: Xenomancers


Wyldhunt wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
This is a pretty cool idea. For all bolter weapons if you deal an unsaved wound ad an additional str 3 auto hit to the unit. To represent the explosion on the round on vehicals and over penetration on infantry.


Hmm. That is neat. Does the math work out on that in a desirable fashion? 5 marines shoot 10 shots at some guardsmen. They generate 6 ish hits (for the sake of easy math) which results in 4 wounds which results in about 3 dead guardsmen. This results in 3 bonus hits that will wound 1.5 times and kill one guardsman. Not amazing, but feels good.

6 hits against a chaos marine squad gives you 3 wounds, 1 dead chaos marine, 1 bonus hit, 1/3rd of a wound, and 1/9ths of a dead chaos marine. So not very useful.

6 hits against a rhino gives you 2 wounds, maybe 1 unsaved wound, 1 bonus hit, 1/6th of a wound, 1/18th of an extra hull point.

So I feel like this rule won't actually be very useful, but it also seems like it would feel good when it does work. And that rare time that you bsaically double your casualty count and evaporate a whole swarm of hormagaunts is going to feel pretty darn good. Would it be annoying to resolve though? For a bolter marine squad, it isn't too bad, but what about when you have to roll that extra to-wound roll and armor save and feel no pain roll each time a random drop pod or vehicle-mounted storm bolter tosses a couple of shots at you? You're almost doubling the time it takes to resolve a given bolt weapon's attacks.
Well the bolter really feels weak against light infantry to me. I think it should specialize at killing light infantry because that is kind of the roll marines have in general to fill. It really wouldn't take too long. It's will be quick to determine how many additional wound rolls to make because it's the same number of wounds you inflicted and the saves will be the same. It's just rolling a few more dice at the end of any bolter exchange. I catch your drift though. Something like an on a 6 effect just seems overdone. Maybe something like a +1 to wound against infantry?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 14:50:13


Post by: Martel732


The bolter is weak against cheap infantry, because it is removing fewer points per shot against cheap stuff than it is elites.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 14:55:12


Post by: Blacksails


Martel732 wrote:
The bolter is weak against cheap infantry, because it is removing fewer points per shot against cheap stuff than it is elites.


The same is true of literally every single weapon.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 14:58:17


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
And Scouts can choose either the Boltgun or the Shotgun (or Sniper Rifles).

Guardians, unlike Scouts and Tac Marines, really can't endure being within 12" of the enemy. I'd rather have the Shuriken Catapault on my Tacs and Scouts, and the Boltgun on my Guardians - because they could do a midfield job so much better with that, but my Scouts and Marines want to get close.

Scouts make better foils for Guardians than Tac Marines, and Tac Marines make better foils for DAs.

The comparison is best with a Plas/CombiPlas Tac squad vs DAs, because they're both volume of fire with an anti-Elite bent. At a per-point level, that's 5 Tacs vs 7 DAs. About the same firepower. About the same survivability. They actually compare, math-wise, quite well. DAs are now a little ahead (if they cost 13 ppm or had to pay for the Exarch, I think it'd be even), as long as you don't look at CC options.
You have to admit - with that pseudo rending it makes the shuriken cat a much better weapon. I'd take it over a bolter on almost any unit - other than an artillery piece.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 14:58:25


Post by: Martel732


But those weapons are typically on cheaper bodies, getting more shots, and end up being functionally more efficient.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:00:30


Post by: Blacksails


Martel732 wrote:
But those weapons are typically on cheaper bodies, getting more shots, and end up being functionally more efficient.


See, now you're actually making a point. Stating that a weapon is weak against cheap stuff because cheap stuff is cheap is obvious and not a point to be made to adjust a weapon.

If you did an analysis of the weapon and the carrier and compared to similar units and weapons, then you'd have a point.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:03:53


Post by: Martel732


For that much detail, GW can pay me.

Bolters are SUPPOSED to be more effective against light infantry, but they aren't. At least, that's my understanding.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:05:56


Post by: Xenomancers


 Blacksails wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The bolter is weak against cheap infantry, because it is removing fewer points per shot against cheap stuff than it is elites.


The same is true of literally every single weapon.

Well an elite killer usually comes with some -ap and possibly multiple damage. The approach for anti infantry weapons seems to be lots of shots. However - lots of shots ends up being more effective against elites than hordes. I see this as an issue. It's because there is no real specialization against the chaff infantry.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:07:04


Post by: Martel732


Rumor is that the intercessor is going down to 18 pts. That's 10% more -1 AP shots from that model line. Of course, 18 pt intercessors is basically an admission that 13 pts is too much for a marine.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:12:38


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
Rumor is that the intercessor is going down to 18 pts. That's 10% more -1 AP shots from that model line. Of course, 18 pt intercessors is basically an admission that 13 pts is too much for a marine.
IDK about that. I think it's more of a realization that a reiver is basically the same thing and cost 18 points. More importantly I'd like to see the weapons option on intercessors become free - the free weapon already being the best in gerneal option. I would like to have the ability to but auto bolters on them so I can advance and shoot. It might get me in CC a turn earlier.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:15:41


Post by: Martel732


Or an admission there are WAY more multiple-wound weapons than they thought.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:18:33


Post by: Blacksails


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The bolter is weak against cheap infantry, because it is removing fewer points per shot against cheap stuff than it is elites.


The same is true of literally every single weapon.

Well an elite killer usually comes with some -ap and possibly multiple damage. The approach for anti infantry weapons seems to be lots of shots. However - lots of shots ends up being more effective against elites than hordes. I see this as an issue. It's because there is no real specialization against the chaff infantry.


The core issue being the constant stacking of special rules on every basic weapon in some attempt to differentiate them and give them more uniqueness. As far as I'm concerned, I'd knock all the special rules off the basic infantry weapons of all factions and have the main differences be ranges, volume of fire, and maybe an AP modifiers on one or two of them.

Then again, the scale of the game is so borked that we run into issues of armies with literally 200 bodies on the table against an army with 3 models. Of course we'll have issues of most weapons not being able to mathematically chew through the horde, and that's a problem that can't really be addressed without breaking the game in some other area.

If the game was normalized so that a horde was somewhere in the 60 max models range, and a similarily pointed elite force fielded 10-20 models, we'd be able to hash out a reasonable profile for anti-horde weaponry. As it stands, short of a complicated mechanic involving secondary explosions and multiple damage to only certain units, the game is just proper dickered when it comes to the horde <-> elite spectrum. Basic weapons have long been mostly useless, and that's due to the scale creep of the game making heavy and special weapons the only weapons worth considering.

As an example, larger scale games aren't concerned with every basic infantry weapon. Most units are simplified to 1-3 profiles; their anti-infantry profile, an anti-tank profile, and potentially some special profile. The anti-infantry profile represents the mass of basic weapons and the section special weapon, while the anti-tank profile represents the section heavy weapon(s). At its core now, 40k is essentially a 15mm game played at 28mm, with 28mm mechanics rather than 15mm mechanics. Hence why we go through the same cycle every edition of complaining about basic weapons being useless and basic troopers being equally useless.

To give bolters a basic boost for now, I'd probably lean towards a basic ability like the 30k Fury of the Legion, sacrificing mobility or next turn's damage for a higher output when you need it.

TL;DR, game is broke, basic weapons have long sucked, bolters could use a small boost to be comparable to every other basic weapon now.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:27:22


Post by: skchsan


So what is it about S4 AP0 on a BS+3, that hits 2/3rd of the time and wounds 2/3, 1/2, and 1/3 against T3/4/5 respectively?

Units that have better saves cost more, while units with weak saves cost less.

Bolter scouts cost less because they have less armor.

How do we go about fixing a bolter without overhauling the game?

Fluff or not, bolters arent supposed to be anti anything. They do baseline damage with baseline efficiency.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:29:10


Post by: Bharring


What basic weapons do you think are acceptable for killing hordes?

Pulse weaponry isn't any better at killing T3 than T4
Gauss weaponry is better at killing elitest saves
Shuriken weaponry is better at killing elistest saves
Splinter weaponry is better at killing high-T models - even worse than Bolters vs GEQ.

Lasguns are the only other small arms option that isn't skewed to killing Elites over GEQ.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:32:58


Post by: skchsan


Bharring wrote:
What basic weapons do you think are acceptable for killing hordes?

Pulse weaponry isn't any better at killing T3 than T4
Gauss weaponry is better at killing elitest saves
Shuriken weaponry is better at killing elistest saves
Splinter weaponry is better at killing high-T models - even worse than Bolters vs GEQ.

Lasguns are the only other small arms option that isn't skewed to killing Elites over GEQ.


Assault cannons are my go to anti horde


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 15:33:36


Post by: Martel732


Bharring wrote:
What basic weapons do you think are acceptable for killing hordes?

Pulse weaponry isn't any better at killing T3 than T4
Gauss weaponry is better at killing elitest saves
Shuriken weaponry is better at killing elistest saves
Splinter weaponry is better at killing high-T models - even worse than Bolters vs GEQ.

Lasguns are the only other small arms option that isn't skewed to killing Elites over GEQ.


None of them, I guess.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 16:01:39


Post by: skchsan


 Xenomancers wrote:
Well an elite killer usually comes with some -ap and possibly multiple damage. The approach for anti infantry weapons seems to be lots of shots. However - lots of shots ends up being more effective against elites than hordes. I see this as an issue. It's because there is no real specialization against the chaff infantry.


Its a quality over quantity issue. The game isn't as two dimensional as most us make it out to be.

Take a mortis dread with two assault cannons vs unit of 30 cultists. Cultists are doing +4 to hit with +6 to wound. The dread hits on +3 with +2's to wound. But it only does 12 max wounds you say? Well, the blob just lost 12 units with Ld6 so they remove another 12~17 models for morale.

You don't send in a pawn to do a rook's job.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 16:49:21


Post by: Bharring


Seems to be the Boltgun is one of the best Hordes-killers amongst small arms. If the problem is that even it isn't good enough vs Hordes, wouldn't buffing it vs Hordes just leave everyone else worse off?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 16:50:47


Post by: Martel732


It's not one of the best. It's one of the worst because of who carries it. Or rather, how few bolters can be fielded. And it has inferior utility to most other small arms in addition.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 16:51:55


Post by: AnomanderRake


Martel732 wrote:
It's not one of the best. It's one of the worst because of who carries it.


And yet the shuriken catapult is one of the best small arms in spite of who carries it?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 16:54:07


Post by: Martel732


I don't know about that, really. I'm liking lasguns because of numbers. Catapults are just extra salt in the wounds of elite infantry.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:01:10


Post by: skchsan


Martel732 wrote:
It's not one of the best. It's one of the worst because of who carries it.


But this is more related how point inefficient basic SM troops are and less so a weapon effectiveness discussion?

If we compare apples to apples, bolters are still the baseline weapon.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:02:25


Post by: Bharring


Didn't we just go over 'most other small arms' and show that they're better suited for killing non-hordes?

It's a straight upgrade from the Shuriken Catapault when fighting anything without a relevant Armor Save. Sidegrade for those with minor armor. Anything else isn't hordes.

Gauss is identical for anything without a relevant Armor Save. It's only marginally better for those with minor armor. Anything else isn't hordes.

It's an upgrade from Splinter for any T3 hordes, identical for T4. Anything above that isn't hordes.

Pulse outperforms vs T4 hordes. Only has additional range vs T3 hordes - but that's Tau's schtick.

Gaunts with their lawlful shooting?
Lasguns are about on the same page (as stated).

What are all these tons of small arms that are better vs hordes than the Boltgun?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:02:51


Post by: Martel732


They are inseparable, imo.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:09:30


Post by: skchsan


Bharring wrote:
Didn't we just go over 'most other small arms' and show that they're better suited for killing non-hordes?

It's a straight upgrade from the Shuriken Catapault when fighting anything without a relevant Armor Save. Sidegrade for those with minor armor. Anything else isn't hordes.

Gauss is identical for anything without a relevant Armor Save. It's only marginally better for those with minor armor. Anything else isn't hordes.

It's an upgrade from Splinter for any T3 hordes, identical for T4. Anything above that isn't hordes.

Pulse outperforms vs T4 hordes. Only has additional range vs T3 hordes - but that's Tau's schtick.

Gaunts with their lawlful shooting?
Lasguns are about on the same page (as stated).

What are all these tons of small arms that are better vs hordes than the Boltgun?


Bolters are just standard weapon capable of reliably forcing save rolls on anything below T8. Most other basic weapons function in the same sense that any weapon above S4 deals varied amounts of damage to everything below T8.

There are specific weapons to deal with T3's and their tendency to blob up - and its not bolters.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:11:57


Post by: Bharring


I think that's some of the complaints here - what are some good Troops-level weapons for dealing with T3s? Might help to have some SM examples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(T3 hordes)


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:13:04


Post by: Martel732


No examples for sm. You have to pay for a 13 pt loser to start with. The marine tax ruins every marine anti-horde weapon.



Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:16:07


Post by: skchsan


Martel732 wrote:
No examples for sm. You have to pay for a 13 pt loser to start with. The marine tax ruins every marine anti-horde weapon.


Right. SM's don't deal with hordes with troops. They just do average damage to just about anything below T8.

We don't put up rock against and rock and see which rock is harder. We just put up papers.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:20:28


Post by: Martel732


The assault cannon crutch looks like its getting the nerf hammer, too.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:32:13


Post by: Bobug


This thread is hilarious. It makes it sound like marine players are the true "hard times" martyrs of 40k. It must be so difficult to play.

On topic. Im of the opinion bolt weapons and marines as a whole (not counting rowboat/stormraven/razor as we all.know the score with that) are fine. If I support any change to space marines, it would be that tacs have objective secured+1 in that they always beat other objective secured units, and maybe a fury of the legion esque rule too. Other than that. I also think if you want an army to have all the best options or the same stuff as everyone else, maybe play a different game for a bit.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:34:47


Post by: Grey Templar


Bobug wrote:
This thread is hilarious. It makes it sound like marine players are the true "hard times" martyrs of 40k. It must be so difficult to play.


Not really. Its mostly a lamentation that your basic marine with a bolter has always been too expensive. Marines as a faction have always done ok, but they're dragging around the Troop tax. They have to pay a lot of points to bring special weapons that actually get work done by taking along a lot of bolter derps.

It's why the term Troop tax even exists. In order to take the cool stuff, you had to take bolter marines who were only really good for sitting on objectives. Primaris Marines don't have as much of this issue.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:36:43


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
What basic weapons do you think are acceptable for killing hordes?

Pulse weaponry isn't any better at killing T3 than T4
Gauss weaponry is better at killing elitest saves
Shuriken weaponry is better at killing elistest saves
Splinter weaponry is better at killing high-T models - even worse than Bolters vs GEQ.

Lasguns are the only other small arms option that isn't skewed to killing Elites over GEQ.

1. The Pulse Rifle has an easier Rapid Fire range to get, and the max range means most hordes have to get closer to get any objective they might be holding. It's not a better horde killer, but just a strictly better weapon.
2. That depends on the weapon. Blasters are S5 AP-2, whereas the Flayer is on a cheaper model and is S4 AP-1. That cheaper body is better for killing hordes, but ask any of us Necron players how that works out. Hint: it doesn't.
3. That's only partly true until the units are in cover. Then the Shuriken weapon is still ignoring their saves. However, being better at elite killing is depending on the price of the elite.
4. I don't see anyone being able to defend Splinter Rifles on this so I won't bother.

So really we are just pointing out there's either a pricing issue on hordes, or that the Bolter isn't any good at it. Especially when you consider all the fancy rules most of those weapons get (granted though, Assault as a profile means less than it used to).
So we either throw the Bolter a bone, or make all those weapons worse at their jobs. I think the answer is obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:
And Scouts can choose either the Boltgun or the Shotgun (or Sniper Rifles).

Guardians, unlike Scouts and Tac Marines, really can't endure being within 12" of the enemy. I'd rather have the Shuriken Catapault on my Tacs and Scouts, and the Boltgun on my Guardians - because they could do a midfield job so much better with that, but my Scouts and Marines want to get close.

Scouts make better foils for Guardians than Tac Marines, and Tac Marines make better foils for DAs.

The comparison is best with a Plas/CombiPlas Tac squad vs DAs, because they're both volume of fire with an anti-Elite bent. At a per-point level, that's 5 Tacs vs 7 DAs. About the same firepower. About the same survivability. They actually compare, math-wise, quite well. DAs are now a little ahead (if they cost 13 ppm or had to pay for the Exarch, I think it'd be even), as long as you don't look at CC options.

You kinda missed the point there. Nobody is taking Scouts with Bolters. They're always either Shotguns, CCW, or Sniper. You only choose Bolter if you're being a fluffbunny.

Hence why the comparison of the Shuriken Catapult being a more equal weapon to the Bolter is a garbage comparison. It doesn't come on a unit with a familiar role, and doesn't even have near close the same profile. Dire Avengers are more equated to Tactical Marines, so the base weapon is more comparable just like with Flayers, Blasters, Shootas, Galvanic Rifles, etc. Guardians and Storm Guardians and Rangers are more equated with Scouts, so there's the comparison of Shotguns, CCW, and Sniper Rifle vs the Shuriken Catapult and those same things.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:42:07


Post by: skchsan


IMO, you have to put this issue on a different perspective - weapon strength for the most part, is supposed to be about how well it can hurt tougher targets, not how well it deals with hordes.

None of the basic weapons at S3~5 wounds on 2+ except for few rare T2 (is there any?).

S3 guns need to roll 5+ for T4 and above with roll of 6+ for T6 and above
S4 guns need to roll 5+ for T5 and above with roll of 6+ for T8 and above
S5 guns need to roll 5+ for T6 and above with roll of 6+ for T10 and above

T5's can be found mostly on heavier infantries. T6-7 comprise of light vehicles and flyers.

Here we see that while S5 weapons are better than S4 for heavy infantries, the potential wound output evens out at T6-7 at both strengths. S5 weapons can effectively wound almost everything in the game, while S4 weapons can effectively wound anything short of LR equivalents.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:50:58


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Gretchen are T2. As far as I know no Orks are using them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Bobug wrote:
This thread is hilarious. It makes it sound like marine players are the true "hard times" martyrs of 40k. It must be so difficult to play.


Not really. Its mostly a lamentation that your basic marine with a bolter has always been too expensive. Marines as a faction have always done ok, but they're dragging around the Troop tax. They have to pay a lot of points to bring special weapons that actually get work done by taking along a lot of bolter derps.

It's why the term Troop tax even exists. In order to take the cool stuff, you had to take bolter marines who were only really good for sitting on objectives. Primaris Marines don't have as much of this issue.

And if the rumor is true that Intercessors are going down in price, the Tactical Marine unit entry has no excuse existing.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:52:19


Post by: Grey Templar


It probably also doesn't help that any strength wounds any toughness on 6s now.

It was better back when certain weapons were useless vs certain toughnesses/armor values so you could have a low strength weapon with an absurdly high rate of fire. You couldn't kill a LRBT with massed lasgun fire, but you could mow down gaunts. But now the weapon would be equally good at killing both. High enough RoF to just force enough 6s to wound through, while still shredding infantry.

Maybe we need a new special rule for weapons that says "This weapon cannot wound TX or above".

Something like

Low Impact X: Weapons with this special rule are specially designed for volume of fire, but lack penetration power. This special rule will always have a number as part of it's name. Weapons with this special rule automatically fail to wound targets with a toughness value equal or greater than the numerical portion of this rule. EG: A weapon with Low Impact 6 would automatically fail to wound vs targets with Toughness 6 or higher.

So then you could have things like

Lasgun: Range 24 Str3 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 6

Bolter: Range 24 Str4 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 8

You could have weapons like this,

Punisher Gatling Cannon: Range 48 Str5, AP - Heavy 20, Low Impact 6

Very very high rate of fire, but it can't abuse the system to be oddly effective vs high toughness targets.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 17:58:07


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Grey Templar wrote:
It probably also doesn't help that any strength wounds any toughness on 6s now.

It was better back when certain weapons were useless vs certain toughnesses/armor values so you could have a low strength weapon with an absurdly high rate of fire. You couldn't kill a LRBT with massed lasgun fire, but you could mow down gaunts. But now the weapon would be equally good at killing both. High enough RoF to just force enough 6s to wound through, while still shredding infantry.

Maybe we need a new special rule for weapons that says "This weapon cannot wound TX or above".

Something like

Low Impact X: Weapons with this special rule are specially designed for volume of fire, but lack penetration power. This special rule will always have a number as part of it's name. Weapons with this special rule automatically fail to wound targets with a toughness value equal or greater than the numerical portion of this rule. EG: A weapon with Low Impact 6 would automatically fail to wound vs targets with Toughness 6 or higher.

So then you could have things like

Lasgun: Range 24 Str3 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 6

Bolter: Range 24 Str4 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 8

You could have weapons like this,

Punisher Gatling Cannon: Range 48 Str5, AP - Heavy 20, Low Impact 6

Very very high rate of fire, but it can't abuse the system to be oddly effective vs high toughness targets.

My only issue is how that scales. Anything should be able to hurt anything in large enough numbers. Doesn't it seem bizarre that you could shoot literally 100 Bolters into the front armor of a Rhino and it doesn't even do diddly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also an issue the old AP system used to have.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:20:53


Post by: Bharring


Many of those others can only compete because of those 'fancy rules' they get. Guardians used to be S4 no special rules. They were an absolutely garbage unit. Fire Warriors at S4 would be a joke, even if the rest of the army were decent.

Blasters aren't really in the same category as Boltguns, they're more like Primaris basic weapons. If you want to factor those weapons in, you'll need to start paying even more points for the weapons.

If the Bolt Gun were as good as the ASC, Guass Blaster, or Pulse Rifle - or even just the Splinter Rifle - the units that take Boltguns would be OP.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:32:12


Post by: Martel732


The current contention is that marines are UP, partially because of bolters. Maybe Chapter Approved helps with this. 18 pt intercessors are a good step.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:35:16


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Many of those others can only compete because of those 'fancy rules' they get. Guardians used to be S4 no special rules. They were an absolutely garbage unit. Fire Warriors at S4 would be a joke, even if the rest of the army were decent.

Blasters aren't really in the same category as Boltguns, they're more like Primaris basic weapons. If you want to factor those weapons in, you'll need to start paying even more points for the weapons.

If the Bolt Gun were as good as the ASC, Guass Blaster, or Pulse Rifle - or even just the Splinter Rifle - the units that take Boltguns would be OP.

Immortals are not close to comparable to Primaris. If anything, they're now the bigger troop equivalent to Tactical Marines and Dire Avengers and Warriors are the cheaper shield as a troop choice (though nobody uses them).

Guardians are also still a joke. So I'm not sure what you're point is besides they need a boost too?

I really don't know what lopsided logic you're using to get to that conclusion. I posted the math just earlier showing that even with the Plasma Gun and Combi-Plasma that Tactical Marines were still a joke to Dire Avengers. I showed you the real melee math of your 10 Avengers vs 5 Tactical Marines (where you forgot that neat Overwatch mechanic).
I really don't know what else you want. You might not be happy with the other basic weapons, but at least they fulfill a function so you don't hate yourself for taking them. You don't try and do that with Bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
The current contention is that marines are UP, partially because of bolters. Maybe Chapter Approved helps with this. 18 pt intercessors are a good step.

Which I honestly unnecessary. If that's the case I have to go buy more of those sexy Mk3 Boarding Shield Marines from FW...


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:43:55


Post by: Martel732


Intercessors are overcosted at 20 pts because of multi-wound weapons alone, and the low shot count. I know some posters like them, but they are useless in my meta, and I suspect many tournament metas.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:50:04


Post by: Grey Templar


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
It probably also doesn't help that any strength wounds any toughness on 6s now.

It was better back when certain weapons were useless vs certain toughnesses/armor values so you could have a low strength weapon with an absurdly high rate of fire. You couldn't kill a LRBT with massed lasgun fire, but you could mow down gaunts. But now the weapon would be equally good at killing both. High enough RoF to just force enough 6s to wound through, while still shredding infantry.

Maybe we need a new special rule for weapons that says "This weapon cannot wound TX or above".

Something like

Low Impact X: Weapons with this special rule are specially designed for volume of fire, but lack penetration power. This special rule will always have a number as part of it's name. Weapons with this special rule automatically fail to wound targets with a toughness value equal or greater than the numerical portion of this rule. EG: A weapon with Low Impact 6 would automatically fail to wound vs targets with Toughness 6 or higher.

So then you could have things like

Lasgun: Range 24 Str3 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 6

Bolter: Range 24 Str4 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 8

You could have weapons like this,

Punisher Gatling Cannon: Range 48 Str5, AP - Heavy 20, Low Impact 6

Very very high rate of fire, but it can't abuse the system to be oddly effective vs high toughness targets.

My only issue is how that scales. Anything should be able to hurt anything in large enough numbers. Doesn't it seem bizarre that you could shoot literally 100 Bolters into the front armor of a Rhino and it doesn't even do diddly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also an issue the old AP system used to have.


OK, I'll give you an m16 and let you fire as many shots into an Abrams front as you'd like. Try to do any real damage within a reasonable amount of time. Maybe within a week you'll have scoured the paint off it.

It's absolutely not bizzare that 100 bolter shots into a Rhino's front did nothing. Maybe, theoretically they could eventually erode their way through the armor, but not in any timeframe relevant to a battle.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:54:46


Post by: JNAProductions


I believe someone once did a test, and it took around 16,000 .22 caliber bullets to punch through an inch of steel. Not military steel, just regular steel.

Admittedly, bolters are a damn sight more powerful than .22, but at the same time, Rhino armor should be a damn sight better than ordinary 21st century steel.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 18:58:41


Post by: Martel732


 JNAProductions wrote:
I believe someone once did a test, and it took around 16,000 .22 caliber bullets to punch through an inch of steel. Not military steel, just regular steel.

Admittedly, bolters are a damn sight more powerful than .22, but at the same time, Rhino armor should be a damn sight better than ordinary 21st century steel.


Not necessarily; it's the retro-future. But I get your point.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 19:22:27


Post by: Bharring


I'm not seeing your math. Where did you post it?

If DAs and Marines are supposed to be the same tier (I'd agree) at about the same PPM (again, agree), then they should be about equally good. If Marines are much more durable, much more versatile, have a lot more options, and are much better in CC, why is it bad for the DA gun to be better?

As for the numbers:
Marines kill 1x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) guys per attack -> 2 per 9
DAs kill 1x(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) guys per attack -> 2 per 27

You can add Overwatch, which means that DAs kill (2)(1/3)(1/2)(1/3) + (2)(1/3)(1/6)(5/6), or about 2 dead Tacs from a 10-man overwatch.

Assuming SM charge without shooting first, and without using cover or LOS (why not at least shoot? You'll do more to the DAs than thier overwatch would then do to you!) the DAs win. That's very contrived. If Tacs shoot first, they kill:

5x(2)(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) -> 2 or 3 dead DAs, who are now not shooting back at you. Shoot first, and now 4 Tacs get into CC. COuld go either way.

Anyways, with what I was talking about, 5 Tacs vs 10 DAs:
5 Tacs kill 1 DA, 10 DAs kill half a Tac
4.5 Tacs kill nearly 1 DA, 9 DAs kill nearly half a Tac...

And so forth. Really close, but Tacs win on average. Takes too long to do in one game.

So the '5 Tacs vs 10 DAs in CC' is accurate, unless you're giving DAs overwatch while not getting shot at. Which seems BS.

PG vs ShuriKats vs Tac Termies?
Tacs:
Plas -> 4x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) -> 32/27
BG -> 6x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) -> 2/6

DAs:
Rends -> 7x2x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) -> 28/27
Non-rends -> 7x2x(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) -> 14/27

So Marines kill 1.5 Termies. DAs kill 1.5 Termies.. Looks close to me.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 19:30:58


Post by: Martel732


Marines are likely not living long enough against any Eldar army to charge. These vacuum experiments are about as good as it gets for marines. Once you start putting them in context of an army, they get worse really fast because now they are being bombarded by wyverns or dark reapers or something.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 19:36:43


Post by: Bharring


... Which kill DAs faster than Marines.

So how is it a problem that the DA has a better gun than the Tac Marine? Do you really think the Tac Marine should have the better weapon?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 19:40:35


Post by: Martel732


No, but then they should be cheaper than they currently are, because they can't a) survive the fire and b) can't silence the fire. I'm paying 13 points for what the guard basically get for 4 pts. There are no good targets for marines, and paying to equip them to do a job makes them far too expensive per wound, imo.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 21:11:36


Post by: Infantryman


Did anyone at GW say why the Bolter lost any AP? When I last played they were S4 AP5 and that was all well and good for everyone, I think. Is it just because of the way vehicles do their profiles, now?

(OT: For Marines, is their issue being low in absolute number on the table or low in survivability for their cost?)

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 21:14:02


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Infantryman wrote:
Did anyone at GW say why the Bolter lost any AP? When I last played they were S4 AP5 and that was all well and good for everyone, I think. Is it just because of the way vehicles do their profiles, now?

(OT: For Marines, is their issue being low in absolute number on the table or low in survivability for their cost?)

M.


It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 21:47:07


Post by: Infantryman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Infantryman wrote:
Did anyone at GW say why the Bolter lost any AP? When I last played they were S4 AP5 and that was all well and good for everyone, I think. Is it just because of the way vehicles do their profiles, now?

(OT: For Marines, is their issue being low in absolute number on the table or low in survivability for their cost?)

M.


It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.


Ah, I see. I did not play 7e, but I take it to be a recent change, then. I suppose teething pains are to be expected, but it still feels kind of strange. Then again, Gameplay and Story Separation.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 22:04:39


Post by: skchsan


 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.
Would have been nice if they took into account the old AP mechanic of 'ignoring' armor and translated it as such:

AP6 -> AP-0
AP5 -> AP-1
AP4 -> AP-2
AP3 -> AP-3
AP2 -> AP-4
AP1 -> AP-5

Where the old AP1 weapons will cause a 2+ saves to become irrelevant, thus 'ignoring armor' like what meltas used to do. I get why GW chose to go with the route of "anything can hurt anything" approach, and I like it, but a lot was lost in that translation. There were no reasons to weaken the big guns when all the targets worth taking the big guns for were buffed.

If boltgun and heavy bolter were translated from S4AP5/S5AP4, into S4AP-1/S5AP-2, there would be ever so slightly less reason for a thread like this.



Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 22:19:50


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


If the math didn't post Bharring I'll have to post it again as I was on my phone. Gimme a couple of hours.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 22:27:30


Post by: Bharring


I already did upthread.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/09 23:21:16


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
I already did upthread.

I had differing results which is why somethings gone amiss.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 01:35:12


Post by: fraser1191


I feel like at this point they need to just make transports cheaper so marines can survive that initial blow instead of making marines cheaper in my opinion.
and maybe, MAYBE give marines a 6++ and or give all marines a rule similar to scions trait where they can take an additional shot on a 6, or generate another hit outright. i can handle the no ap but there need to be more to a marine than a 3+ and BS3


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 01:53:28


Post by: Infantryman


What about 2d6 pick best for "Marine Armor" saves?

The problem with 40k's whole base of mechanics is that resolution is very course; there isn't much room to bump something up a level without completely changing its apparent nature.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 02:20:10


Post by: AnomanderRake


 skchsan wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.
Would have been nice if they took into account the old AP mechanic of 'ignoring' armor and translated it as such:

AP6 -> AP-0
AP5 -> AP-1
AP4 -> AP-2
AP3 -> AP-3
AP2 -> AP-4
AP1 -> AP-5

Where the old AP1 weapons will cause a 2+ saves to become irrelevant, thus 'ignoring armor' like what meltas used to do. I get why GW chose to go with the route of "anything can hurt anything" approach, and I like it, but a lot was lost in that translation. There were no reasons to weaken the big guns when all the targets worth taking the big guns for were buffed.

If boltgun and heavy bolter were translated from S4AP5/S5AP4, into S4AP-1/S5AP-2, there would be ever so slightly less reason for a thread like this.



Yeah, but this way "Sv 5+" and "Sv 6+" aren't wasted ink the way they were in 3rd-7th.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 02:38:07


Post by: fraser1191


 Infantryman wrote:
What about 2d6 pick best for "Marine Armor" saves?

The problem with 40k's whole base of mechanics is that resolution is very course; there isn't much room to bump something up a level without completely changing its apparent nature.

M.


Would be great but that would slow things down. What about just removing 1 ap from an attack, so ap -3 would be treated as -2 and then give marines cause they have 2 hearts lol

But its kinda getting away from the gun. which id say is fine and that its the "platform" that is the problem


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 02:44:21


Post by: Infantryman


Well, I haven't rolled dice since 4e so I can't really say I have a real opinion on them. What I do know is that for 1 point per man I'm willing to put them on my AM squadleaders.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 03:01:33


Post by: Xenomancers


 fraser1191 wrote:
 Infantryman wrote:
What about 2d6 pick best for "Marine Armor" saves?

The problem with 40k's whole base of mechanics is that resolution is very course; there isn't much room to bump something up a level without completely changing its apparent nature.

M.


Would be great but that would slow things down. What about just removing 1 ap from an attack, so ap -3 would be treated as -2 and then give marines cause they have 2 hearts lol

But its kinda getting away from the gun. which id say is fine and that its the "platform" that is the problem

-1 AP to an attack would be a great stat for a marine and for terms.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 03:09:47


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Marines don't need more durability. They need the offensive power without adding to ridiculous power creep.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 03:28:25


Post by: fraser1191


Well for Marines like I said, they are trained for years and are essentially immortal. So they need a special rule for shooting because then there wont be a huge shift with other units from other armies that can take the bolter or other variations of the bolter. I'm fine with the bolter but I Expect a marine to use it better as opposed to a sister, who has the same BS which in my mind is "why would I bother with this guy when a girl is cheaper and does the same thing?" lol


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 14:06:58


Post by: Bharring


If they had made all the AP5 weapons Ap-1 (and improved everything else by 1), wouldn't Marines players be the most salty? After all, most weapons would then treat their 3+ as a 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Slayer,
Both things I ran the numbers on are very close, so small changes in the setup could swing it.

For the 5 vs 10 in CC, I was doing simultaneous attacks (not technically possible, but giving either first attack is unfair). If you had DAs attacking first, DAs would win 5 vs 10 (but not 6 v 10) on average.

But I suppose that's why I like giving Sarges power weapons, but not Exarchs - Tac squads don't need to be better than CC units to win CC against enemy ranged units. Situational, but 4 pts per squad, for a nice little threat-in-being.

Exarchs only pay 4 pts per power weapon, but then can't take a ShuriKat (or two). Considering you take DAs for their base weapon, not for squad specials, it's kinda a big deal.

The numbers vs Tac Termies were close as well. Depending on the target, it might have swung the other way.

Where this applies to the thread, is that this is mostly about Tac Marines. The SM equivelent to ASCs and Gauss Rifles are PL/Combi/+Bolters, not the bolters alone.

When you compare PL/Combi + Bolters vs things, Tacs start seeming more reasonable (but not great). Against DAs, I think they are very close (DAs should either cost 14ppm, or pay 10 points for their Exarchs - otherwise, they're fair).

Similar comparisons can be made with a lot of troop choices in the game. I just don't see the Tacs as the unbalanced one. Enjoy your specials, your Lascannons, your durability.

Less durability per point than the spammy troops, but more than the glass cannon armies. Better shooty per point than the spammy troops, but less than the glass cannon shooters. Better choppy than the shooty or spammy troops, but less than the choppy.

DAs are slightly better (by maybe 1 or 2 ppm). Conscripts were notably better. IG Infantry is debatable. But there are many, many more troops in the game that have it worse than SM Tacs.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:19:18


Post by: Martel732


I don't know about that. Infantry is largely for taking up space and providing chaff. They are ineffective at shooting compared to the units they protect. Marines are some of the worst screens, so they are among the worst in this role.

Marines don't really have the durabilty you think they in a real match, because non-troop weapons are doing the work. Agsinst ig and eldar guns, marines are a liability for sure.

The special weapons you refer to end up costing too many points.

You can leave boltguns where they are, but then i think marines need a pricedrop because they are so weak offensively.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:34:26


Post by: Bharring


But don't non-Tacs die to the same weapons, but much faster (per model or per point)?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:49:03


Post by: Martel732


Per point almost certainly not. That's the problem. Especially if you pay for combi/special/heavy weapons. Marines become around 20 ppm if you do. That's nuts.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:53:09


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
But don't non-Tacs die to the same weapons, but much faster (per model or per point)?

Which is part of the issue. Devastators get Heavy Weapons and the ability to boost them without additional help (Cherub and Signum, and that only gets better when you include a bonus), Veterans and Sternguard do the special weapon saturation for cheaper and better, etc.

So at that point the only thing Tactical Marines have is Objective Secured, which is a non-rule. I can count on one hand how many times that mattered since 7th itself started! If you want those CP, there's ways of going about it or replicating it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, this thread is not about the Tactical Marine. It's about the Bolter. Nobody wants them. That's why your Scouts never take them when they have the option. That's why you readily replace them with any other squad.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:54:39


Post by: Breng77


Personally I think the best fix to bolters would be to make them all storm bolters (including the 2 point increase)


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:56:15


Post by: Martel732


Tac marines and bolters are an inseparable issue.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 16:59:26


Post by: Breng77


Personally I would also give all bolters special ammo to really lend toward their all arounder style unit type.

I think Intercessors with Special ammo storm bolters at their current price point would seem like a good place for marines to be. (replace tactical marines essentially as what a marine should feel like). Then give them 2 base attacks in close combat, and options to swap out for chainswords etc.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:01:58


Post by: Bharring


Martel,
You might want to doublecheck your math about other Troops not dying faster per point than Tacs. Some don't - specifically the spammy ones, who's only purpose is to not die faster per point (conscripts, gaunts, Necron Warriors). Most others do:
-Scouts
-Guardians
-Dire Avengers
-Rangers
-Kalabites
-Wyches
-Fire Warriors
-Kroot

Not all troops are Tacs or Conscripts.

The reason it's relevant, is because once you give Tacs CombiBolters - even for 2ppm - all other troops are now even worse off. Because Tacs will mow them down even faster than today.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:06:25


Post by: Martel732


Equip the marines as you propose and then double check your math.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:07:39


Post by: Breng77


Which is why I would want them to be like intercessors at 20 PPM so they would be slightly more like they are in the fluff, though that should be true for other races as well. Troops in the game in general could use a buff especially in an edition where they are not necessary. I want marines in general to be outnumbered 2 to one or more by most standard troops though, but be equipped to actually handle that with smart play.

Actually without even taking special ammo into account a 20 point 2 wound space marine balances well point for point against a guardsman.

20 points of marine at 12" putting out 4 shots, hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, against a 5+ save kills 1.18 guardsman = so 4 rounds kills 4.74 guardsmans (Rounding puts it to 5) which is 20 points
20 points guardsman (5) put out 10 shots, hit 5 (on 4+), wound 1.7 (5+), do 0.56 wounds (3+ save), so~ 4 rounds of shooting to kill a single marine (2.22 wounds) so that is pretty close.

In combat those the marine kills 2 guardsman in 4 rounds, and takes a single wound.




Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:11:50


Post by: Martel732


They're never going to be able to do that, though.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:11:52


Post by: Bharring


Scouts become cheaper per point.

Guardians without equipping them get close, with equipping them they cost more.

Dire Avengers are really close, but still worse off unless all the shooting is S8+ AP-4+.

Rangers can vary by BS of the shooter.

Kalabites are worse if you equip them similarly.

Wyches are still worse

Fire Warriors are marginally even vs small arms, better vs the big stuff. But the Tacs have better firepower, now.

Kroot still die faster per point

(Assuming 20ppm, with 5 Marines having 1 PG 1 Combi.)

So, yeah. Still.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:16:31


Post by: Martel732


The difference in practice must always be supporting units, because my marines are dying way faster than other troops on a per point basis in the actual games.

My opponent loses 4 dire avengers and i lose 20 marines. Nothing to see here!


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 17:35:07


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
If they had made all the AP5 weapons Ap-1 (and improved everything else by 1), wouldn't Marines players be the most salty? After all, most weapons would then treat their 3+ as a 4+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Slayer,
Both things I ran the numbers on are very close, so small changes in the setup could swing it.

For the 5 vs 10 in CC, I was doing simultaneous attacks (not technically possible, but giving either first attack is unfair). If you had DAs attacking first, DAs would win 5 vs 10 (but not 6 v 10) on average.

But I suppose that's why I like giving Sarges power weapons, but not Exarchs - Tac squads don't need to be better than CC units to win CC against enemy ranged units. Situational, but 4 pts per squad, for a nice little threat-in-being.

Exarchs only pay 4 pts per power weapon, but then can't take a ShuriKat (or two). Considering you take DAs for their base weapon, not for squad specials, it's kinda a big deal.

The numbers vs Tac Termies were close as well. Depending on the target, it might have swung the other way.

Where this applies to the thread, is that this is mostly about Tac Marines. The SM equivelent to ASCs and Gauss Rifles are PL/Combi/+Bolters, not the bolters alone.

When you compare PL/Combi + Bolters vs things, Tacs start seeming more reasonable (but not great). Against DAs, I think they are very close (DAs should either cost 14ppm, or pay 10 points for their Exarchs - otherwise, they're fair).

Similar comparisons can be made with a lot of troop choices in the game. I just don't see the Tacs as the unbalanced one. Enjoy your specials, your Lascannons, your durability.

Less durability per point than the spammy troops, but more than the glass cannon armies. Better shooty per point than the spammy troops, but less than the glass cannon shooters. Better choppy than the shooty or spammy troops, but less than the choppy.

DAs are slightly better (by maybe 1 or 2 ppm). Conscripts were notably better. IG Infantry is debatable. But there are many, many more troops in the game that have it worse than SM Tacs.

Small changes would include Chapter Tactics as well. If you give the Dire Avengers the rerolls of 1 on the Shuriken weapons, that equates near another dead marine (which is 2.2 to 2.6 with 12 shots, which matters on round 2). Only thing I could give Tactical Marines in that Scenario was Ignores Cover, which gives the edge when both units are in cover at the same time.

The other part is how many Troop choices are worse off? In terms of Codices already released, I know Guardians are still crummy, and that the basic Chaos Marine is equal for everything besides that it can get double the same weapon at 10 dudes or switch their Bolters for a CCW, which technically makes them better because of choices but that's a non-bonus. I also can tell you the fact that Grey Knight Terminators went up in price rather than down is basically insulting. However, AdMech has acceptable screening troops and Kataphrons aren't terrible, though they'd actually be fine offensively if we got any transports for Skitarii. Grey Knight Strike Squads offer the same amount of durability for a few more points, but have double the shots and attacks (assuming you go Falcions, but you're already doing that), and the Psilencer is a pretty cool weapon. Berserker Marines and Noise Marines do their thing and Cultists get their CP generation done for a cheap price. Scouts offer several tools and can be on the offensive without having to be transported (you're either using Sniper Rifles or Infiltrating, so the Storm is a useless unit entry), Dire Avengers and Rangers have their defined roles and do them correctly instead of trying to be a unit that does everything below average, and lastly we got Infantry and Conscripts, both of which have shown how excellent they are mathematically (but you don't take Infantry squads because Scions exist, which is another troop choice).

I still haven't gone over the Tyranid codex so I can't make any commentary on it.

For the Codices released they're sure near the bottom, and with the units that are just already better in the first place (Immortals, Boyz, Kalabites), they'll get their fix with a codex and continue doing better.
I'm not trying to make Bolters AP-5, I'm simply trying to give Bolter units as a whole more offensive bite so the Bolter is actually taken but not hated. However you have two extremes here, where one side says they're fine and L2P, and you got people straight up adding another AP-1 even though that's the gimmick of Necrons.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:01:37


Post by: Bharring


You can give Tac Marines 6+++. That helps some.

You can give Tac Marines the ability to fall back and then shoot. That helps a lot in the CC discussion (both units would rather shoot that stab, but Tac Marines destroy DAs in shooting).

You can give Tac Marines Sally tactics, which matters when talking about shooting Termies.

Tac Marines could take RG tactics, but that's likely to only matter in the first round of shooting.

There are many other troops in the game. Kalabites. Wyches. Fire Warriors. Kroot. Storm Guardians. Ork Boyz.

GKs offer different things, but at close to double the cost with close to double the dakka, they suffer from having close to half the durability per point. They actually don't compare favorably on the dakka to survivability side of things.

For if the Marine dex is near the bottom, there's already a huge super long thread in General about that (near or exactly middle of released dexes, way above most indexes).

For if Marines are better or worse than troops in the codexes released?
-Scouts have different options - sidegrade from Marines. Plus, they have Boltguns.
-Guardians are maybe a little worse off than Tacs, but same ballpark. Their weapon is a sidegrade (Marines would rather have the ShuriKats, Guardians would rather have Boltguns).
-Rangers have the same role as Sniper Scouts - so sidegrade
-Dire Avengers are very marginally better than Tacs, but are better
-CSM are basically carbon copies, with minor variation in loadout options
-PAGK have DS and twice the shooting, some CC and Psyker shenanigans, and no extra durability, for about twice the cost. Also without the loadout options. Sidegrade at best. Many roles Tacs can do PAGK cannot.
-Cult Troops might be a point, but are cult troops. Half of them might be better, half of them might be worse.

That just leaves the chaff units. Conscripts, Cultits, etc. Even assuming that they're all better than Tacs, still puts Tacs at or near the top.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:04:56


Post by: Martel732


Let's see what chapter approved does.

I'd rank fire warriors above tac marines for sure because of range and they can always stay in cover to do their thing. And their cost.

I don't think the marine codex is one of the worst atm, but it IS heavily reliant on Girlyman, and I think every xeno codex that comes out will outright crush it, starting with Eldar and Tyranids.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:07:51


Post by: Breng77


I think the issue in general with tactical marines has always been that other troops might be worse, but most of those armies have cheaper/better options, so their troops get more support.

For me I'd just like to see marines actually be the back bone of a marine army.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:10:14


Post by: Bharring


I'd love to see the supports/heavies etc be less common, and see the Troops actually matter more.

It felt like the Indexes went that direction. I was fine paying that much more for the big stuff because everyone was.

But the Codexes seem to be reversing direction on that.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:11:30


Post by: Martel732


You don't need super heavies. You just need manticores/wyverns/fire prism/exocrine. The exocrine is so good vs power armor that I'd sometimes rather have grots.

And yes, marines STILL suffer from really skeezy support choices. Preds? Whirlwinds? There's a reason that razorbacks are being abused atm.

Bottom line, this is a game of cheap bodies protecting big guns. Marines can't clear those bodies without a lot of list-gymnastics. Looks like twin asscannon is getting a price hike too, which is fine except that this problem then gets worse.

So, I guess if you aren't going to "fix" boltguns, then you need to give more potent support options, because marines don't have the bodies to give and currently don't have the firepower to clear the bodies outside of a couple specific builds.

Another concern is that the only big-ticket marine unit worth a damn is also slated for a price increase: the stormraven. Make the land raider and repulsor worthwhile and tac marines become more forgivable.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:26:07


Post by: Bharring


What makes the Quad-Las Pred worse than say, the Falcon?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:29:14


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about that. Infantry is largely for taking up space and providing chaff. They are ineffective at shooting compared to the units they protect. Marines are some of the worst screens, so they are among the worst in this role.

Marines don't really have the durabilty you think they in a real match, because non-troop weapons are doing the work. Agsinst ig and eldar guns, marines are a liability for sure.

The special weapons you refer to end up costing too many points.

You can leave boltguns where they are, but then i think marines need a pricedrop because they are so weak offensively.

That is not why an elite infantry like a marine is for. A space marine compared to a guardsmen - the space marine should seem like a heavy support choice. This games scale is so bad. You have a 1000 lb armored suit with a 75mm rapid fire grenade launcher compared to a human being In kevlar weilding a battle rifle and they are effective against the same units and the same units are effective against them. It is a massive joke. They have done marines all wrong. The need increased damage/points/and durability. I'd be perfectly fine with a marine being 50 points each but worth their points.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:29:21


Post by: Martel732


No chapter tactics, inferior upgrade options. Also, compared to fire prism, no grinding advance, and compared to wave serpent, no shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about that. Infantry is largely for taking up space and providing chaff. They are ineffective at shooting compared to the units they protect. Marines are some of the worst screens, so they are among the worst in this role.

Marines don't really have the durabilty you think they in a real match, because non-troop weapons are doing the work. Agsinst ig and eldar guns, marines are a liability for sure.

The special weapons you refer to end up costing too many points.

You can leave boltguns where they are, but then i think marines need a pricedrop because they are so weak offensively.

That is not why an elite infantry like a marine is for. A space marine compared to a guardsmen - the space marine should seem like a heavy support choice. This games scale is so bad. You have a 1000 lb armored suit with a 75mm rapid fire grenade launcher compared to a human being In kevlar weilding a battle rifle and they are effective against the same units and the same units are effective against them. It is a massive joke. They have done marines all wrong. The need increased damage/points/and durability. I'd be perfectly fine with a marine being 50 points each but worth their points.


Marines are space fillers. Even elite infantry is a space filler, because they can't do damage or withstand damage from support options from the various lists.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:35:17


Post by: Bharring


"Inferior Upgrade Options": 2 Lascannons vs 1 Brightlance?

Fire Prisms have Grinding Advance, and I haven't run the numbers for them. Hence why I said Falcon.

The Tri-Las Pred has 4 Lascannons to the Serpent's 2 Brightlances. I should hope the Serpent has *some* advantages (like the shield). Twice the guns, while the gun itself is superior?

Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim.

If all you want are fillers, there are much better fillers out there. If you buff the Marine such that it's as good a filler, those who use it for more than that will be OP.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:35:32


Post by: Xenomancers


Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:37:21


Post by: Martel732


I'm just sad that the bolter relegates the marine to "expensive filler unit". It's more of a purpose than they have had before, but cheaper units are almost always better in practice. Because they give up fewer points when hit by the exocrine or dark reapers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?


They did it in 2nd, fixed it in 3rd, and then slowly let the tac marine slide into worthlessness again. We are basically back in 2nd with the AP modifiers.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:38:53


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
"Inferior Upgrade Options": 2 Lascannons vs 1 Brightlance?

Fire Prisms have Grinding Advance, and I haven't run the numbers for them. Hence why I said Falcon.

The Tri-Las Pred has 4 Lascannons to the Serpent's 2 Brightlances. I should hope the Serpent has *some* advantages (like the shield). Twice the guns, while the gun itself is superior?

Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim.

If all you want are fillers, there are much better fillers out there. If you buff the Marine such that it's as good a filler, those who use it for more than that will be OP.

Falcon is still bad even with it's price drop. Compare quad las pred to crimson hunter exarch with 2 bright lance. Firepower is better on the exarch because reroll 1's - nearly unlimitted mobility compared to a preditor - more wounds in exachange for -1 toughness - can take 6+++ upgrade - -1 to hit. costs 25 points less. Don't compare bad options to bad options. Compare the best anti tank option to the best anti tank option. That is how you figure cross codex balance.

Best anti tank in space marines is quad las pred - compared to the best anti tank in eldar which is the crimson hunter exarch.
Eldar wins in mobility
Eldar win in firepower
Eldar wins in survability
Eldar wins in durability.
Eldar wins in cost by 25
Eldar wins in having additional stats via army trait.

In a perfect world the Quad las pred and the Flacon would both be buffed. The quad las pred would be dropped about 40 points. (A rhino Chassis plus 4 las cannons would be 165) so it makes sense. Plus the Falcon would be given the ability to move and shoot with no penalty. It's a real shame that GW doesn't put me in charge of game balance. I'd have the game fixed in approx 3 days.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:44:49


Post by: Martel732


"Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim. "

You can't disentangle the boltgun from the other issues of marines, though.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:47:27


Post by: Bharring


CHE has 12" less range.

CHE has 1 less S on each shot.

T7 11 W vs T6 12 W, I'd prefer the T7.

Fairly sure it can't take Spirit Stones.

It's a flyer (must move, reserves, different slot, etc).

If we're talking best anti tank in each Dex, that's neither the Falcon nor the Quad-Las Pred. Even so, you're looking at marginally better to-hits for a little worse S at shorter range and less durable. But it's a little cheaper.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:47:47


Post by: Xenomancers


Martel732 wrote:
I'm just sad that the bolter relegates the marine to "expensive filler unit". It's more of a purpose than they have had before, but cheaper units are almost always better in practice. Because they give up fewer points when hit by the exocrine or dark reapers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?


They did it in 2nd, fixed it in 3rd, and then slowly let the tac marine slide into worthlessness again. We are basically back in 2nd with the AP modifiers.

It seems to me since I started playing in 4th. They have kept the marines basically the same...dropping it in points by 1 per eddition. In 5th you at least could get a free rocket for taking a 10 man. however - it seems to me that GW has been ignoring this problem for what is now 4 editions of me playing the game.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:49:20


Post by: Martel732


As I said, I guess we just wait for chapter approved at this point.

Enjoy your easy matches vs marines with CWE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I'm just sad that the bolter relegates the marine to "expensive filler unit". It's more of a purpose than they have had before, but cheaper units are almost always better in practice. Because they give up fewer points when hit by the exocrine or dark reapers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Not disagreeing with the way this game functions but that effectively makes elite infantry worthless. Why have a game where you most popular armies most popular unit - is absolutely worthless in your game?


They did it in 2nd, fixed it in 3rd, and then slowly let the tac marine slide into worthlessness again. We are basically back in 2nd with the AP modifiers.

It seems to me since I started playing in 4th. They have kept the marines basically the same...dropping it in points by 1 per eddition. In 5th you at least could get a free rocket for taking a 10 man. however - it seems to me that GW has been ignoring this problem for what is now 4 editions of me playing the game.


5th was the real beginning of the end as the firepower IG could throw out made marines pointless. Cheap models with big guns wins the day.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:56:18


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
CHE has 12" less range.

CHE has 1 less S on each shot.

T7 11 W vs T6 12 W, I'd prefer the T7.

Fairly sure it can't take Spirit Stones.

It's a flyer (must move, reserves, different slot, etc).

If we're talking best anti tank in each Dex, that's neither the Falcon nor the Quad-Las Pred. Even so, you're looking at marginally better to-hits for a little worse S at shorter range and less durable. But it's a little cheaper.

What is better anti tank than the quad las pred? I'm talking about PPD. Obviously a 6 man centurian with 12 las and 6d3 missles is the best but I'm talking about points efficiency.

Also sorry to everyone about being off topic but the reality is - in the discussion about bolt guns - every weapon is tied to the discussion. If you can't balance the heavies - how can you balance the basics?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:56:48


Post by: Bharring


What I have for my SM would have an easier time in my meta than my CWE, actually. But that's just because of what I have of each faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@xeno: are you kidding? Quadlas Devs, just my first thought. Same firepower (Plus a boltgun, funnily enough) for fewer points.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 18:59:21


Post by: Martel732


Okay, given that you have a marine list, what are you doing to mitigate the effects of terrible model count and poor offensive output?

Or do your opponent just not own exocrines?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 19:01:55


Post by: Bharring


Take more PA Marines to cover for low model count. Take more toys if I need more offense. Mostly combis/specials/heavies on my Tacs/Devs/ASM. But my meta is very non-competitive. My lists wouldn't place at tournies.

My Harlies and Aspect Warriors fear boltguns. My Marines don't.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 19:04:27


Post by: Martel732


Maybe you just aren't being exposed to lists that really highlight the weakness of marines?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 19:49:05


Post by: Infantryman


In addition to the bolt weapons being surprisingly ho-hum, there's also the issue of elite strike forces taking on ptiched battles as a matter of course - that's really not what Marines are supposed to do.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That is not why an elite infantry like a marine is for. A space marine compared to a guardsmen - the space marine should seem like a heavy support choice. This games scale is so bad. You have a 1000 lb armored suit with a 75mm rapid fire grenade launcher compared to a human being In kevlar weilding a battle rifle and they are effective against the same units and the same units are effective against them. It is a massive joke. They have done marines all wrong. The need increased damage/points/and durability. I'd be perfectly fine with a marine being 50 points each but worth their points.


Something I tried to fix in my old "Advanced Play" rules years ago, but as memory serves it ended up being something like 5 marines per platoon of "IG" and the Marines still having a slight edge.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 20:01:48


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
What I have for my SM would have an easier time in my meta than my CWE, actually. But that's just because of what I have of each faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@xeno: are you kidding? Quadlas Devs, just my first thought. Same firepower (Plus a boltgun, funnily enough) for fewer points.
There is a huge difference in survivability here. Pred has twice the wounds t3 toughness as well. While you do get a little bit better points efficiency - the 35 more points you spend for a pred is worth it. Devs are basically considered terrible. PPD isn't the only mechanic to judge a unit by. Yeah - they have the same damage output for a little less points but it's a wash when you consider how easily it is to remove 5 marines. Plus you only need to take out 2-3 to really hurt the squad.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 20:07:56


Post by: Bharring


You were *exceptionally* specific about you wanted an example with better PPD. That's what I did.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 20:23:34


Post by: Breng77


 Xenomancers wrote:
Bharring wrote:
What I have for my SM would have an easier time in my meta than my CWE, actually. But that's just because of what I have of each faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@xeno: are you kidding? Quadlas Devs, just my first thought. Same firepower (Plus a boltgun, funnily enough) for fewer points.
There is a huge difference in survivability here. Pred has twice the wounds t3 toughness as well. While you do get a little bit better points efficiency - the 35 more points you spend for a pred is worth it. Devs are basically considered terrible. PPD isn't the only mechanic to judge a unit by. Yeah - they have the same damage output for a little less points but it's a wash when you consider how easily it is to remove 5 marines. Plus you only need to take out 2-3 to really hurt the squad.


I would argue that the Devs are more survivable in a lot of circumstances in addition to having other advantages. It is easier to get cover for Devs, so they will often be starting at a 2+ save, given their range most things hitting them will be heavy weapons, against those weapons having 5 T4 wounds is actually more durable than having 11 T7 wounds because many heavy weapons cause multiple damage. So in cases where these units are getting hit with say S4 D1 attacks the devs are less durable, but other times that is not the case at all. For instance at 48" range I'd take the devs to kill the pred every time. In the open without cover on either unit. Shooting simultaneously

The pred Does 1.85 damage to the devs
Alternately the devs do 7.13 damage to the pred. (assuming the cherub is used)

Now both are reduced a bit - devs lose 1 lascannon, and the signum, pred down to 4+ to hit

Round 2
Pred does 1.39 damage (1-2 devs left in all likelihood)
Devs do 3.89 damage (Pred dead)

Against any target the devs have a better first round of anti-tank shooting for 20 points less, to be the same points they can take an extra body to allow for 2 wounds before losing a lascannon. The big advantage for preds in durability is against weapons that are not super likely to fire at either unit. The pred is marginally worse in combat, cannot take advantage of vantage points on upper levels of ruins etc.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 20:28:19


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
You were *exceptionally* specific about you wanted an example with better PPD. That's what I did.

Points per damage and point's efficiency were both mentioned. They aren't exactly the same thing. If you automatically get blown off the table in 1 turn by being sneazed at - you aren't points efficient at 165 points.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 21:15:47


Post by: Bharring


When Devs are blown off the table by being sneazed at, but Reapers at T3 are unkillable, something is wrong.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 21:23:32


Post by: Xenomancers


Bharring wrote:
When Devs are blown off the table by being sneazed at, but Reapers at T3 are unkillable, something is wrong.

No one said reapers were unkillable. They can however move and shoot without penalty - ignore opponents negative to hit modifiers - and can deep strike onto the table for 1 command point - then redeploy into a vehicle after they shoot. Or just JSJ out of LOS with fire and fade. This is another situation where the eldar win out. Mobility is a huge factor. I mean look man - you just don't see people spamming dev squads even with ravengaurd. Though it's not terrible - it's just not as good as eldar can be.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 21:27:10


Post by: Bharring


"redeploy into a vehicle..." Nothing in CWE lets a unit redeploy into a vehicle the turn it disembarks.

And JSJ is 1CP.

They also can't take Cherubim, don't have Auspexes, have lower T, are hosed if a small ASM squad gets in, don't have grenades, can't take a cheap Rhino, can't take Lascannons, etc.

They have other benefits too, but you really need to look at both sides of each.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 21:31:34


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
You can give Tac Marines 6+++. That helps some.

You can give Tac Marines the ability to fall back and then shoot. That helps a lot in the CC discussion (both units would rather shoot that stab, but Tac Marines destroy DAs in shooting).

You can give Tac Marines Sally tactics, which matters when talking about shooting Termies.

Tac Marines could take RG tactics, but that's likely to only matter in the first round of shooting.

There are many other troops in the game. Kalabites. Wyches. Fire Warriors. Kroot. Storm Guardians. Ork Boyz.

GKs offer different things, but at close to double the cost with close to double the dakka, they suffer from having close to half the durability per point. They actually don't compare favorably on the dakka to survivability side of things.

For if the Marine dex is near the bottom, there's already a huge super long thread in General about that (near or exactly middle of released dexes, way above most indexes).

For if Marines are better or worse than troops in the codexes released?
-Scouts have different options - sidegrade from Marines. Plus, they have Boltguns.
-Guardians are maybe a little worse off than Tacs, but same ballpark. Their weapon is a sidegrade (Marines would rather have the ShuriKats, Guardians would rather have Boltguns).
-Rangers have the same role as Sniper Scouts - so sidegrade
-Dire Avengers are very marginally better than Tacs, but are better
-CSM are basically carbon copies, with minor variation in loadout options
-PAGK have DS and twice the shooting, some CC and Psyker shenanigans, and no extra durability, for about twice the cost. Also without the loadout options. Sidegrade at best. Many roles Tacs can do PAGK cannot.
-Cult Troops might be a point, but are cult troops. Half of them might be better, half of them might be worse.

That just leaves the chaff units. Conscripts, Cultits, etc. Even assuming that they're all better than Tacs, still puts Tacs at or near the top.

The Salamnders added too little mathematically that simply giving the Tactical Marines ignores cover was help find something they'd do better, which is basically when the Marines get cover, as Avengers can't do anything to ignore that unless I missed something glancing over the Eldar codex. Of course Sternguard and Devastators do that better but oh well.
Ultramarines and White Scars does nothing in the scenario because neither is going to be charging the other. Avengers will continue running and the Tactical Marines would literally have to be transported and want to charge. I also ignored the Iron Hands as that added too little to durability. I'd ignore it for Avengers too, even though they gain more due to durability being lesser in the first place.

I've already went over the other Troop choices. To reiterate key points:
1. Scouts are better because they don't stick with Bolters. You either use Shotguns, Sniper Rifles, or CCW's. It's an option that may as well not exist. As well, because they don't need Transports, they can be placed as either your screen or for offense or both.
If Scouts were stuck with Bolters they'd be worse off actually.
2. I already said Guardian variants are garbage. Just because something is less garbage means nothing to me. They're both garbage.
3. I already talked about Chaos Marines. Outside that they don't get Grav Cannons, they are better because more options.

More the point is that each of these squads specialises in something. Generalist is crap and has been crap for a long time. You need to make them better at generalizing. Not much you can do for the melee end on them, because that basically involves more attacks, and they're a shooting unit anyway that can barely bully Fire Warriors, a totally shooty unit. And while there are differing threads on how you fix the Tactical Marine, one thing we agree on is the issue with the Bolter Marine itself, which then leads to when you're taking Bolters ever. You don't pay for them on Guard, you don't want multiple Bolter Sisters...so that leads credence to the matter there is something wrong with the Bolter itself. That's why I'm proposing this as a universal fix, rather than JUST for the Tactical Marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:
"Inferior Upgrade Options": 2 Lascannons vs 1 Brightlance?

Fire Prisms have Grinding Advance, and I haven't run the numbers for them. Hence why I said Falcon.

The Tri-Las Pred has 4 Lascannons to the Serpent's 2 Brightlances. I should hope the Serpent has *some* advantages (like the shield). Twice the guns, while the gun itself is superior?

Anyways, this is more about the Boltgun, I was just shocked by the claim.

If all you want are fillers, there are much better fillers out there. If you buff the Marine such that it's as good a filler, those who use it for more than that will be OP.

You should probably compare the Serpent to the Razorback instead. They're both transports with a bunch of guns.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 21:47:32


Post by: Bharring


Actually, IH and Uthwe both add the same exact factor to the survivability. It's a flat multiplier that maths out the same across point values and survivability. A .16% increase in survivability for both sides. Makes it easier to compare by using the same Tactic on both sides.

For the RG/Alaitoc, it gets worse for the DAs. The Marines might eat the -1 when they get the alpha against the DAs. Otherwise, any turn in which DAs shoot at Marines, Marines can move within 12". Conversely, however, if DAs ever move within 12", Marines get a 6" charge if they want it (then destroy DAs in CC after shooting). Otherwise, Marines get the RG buff every round. Skewing the comparision in Marines' favor in the head-to-head comparison.

The problem with adding specialization to Tac Marines (or generalizsts in general), is that they're still better than the other specialists at everything else. So now you want Marines to beat the other troops even harder in one category, while beating most troops at most other categories anyways?

Tac Marines actually can bully Fire Warriors even harder than Dire Avengers. If you have some Tacs in charge range of FW, and you have over half their number, you would kick their butts. Why on earth would you think they couldn't?

Many people don't think Tac Marines need a fix. And others think changing the Boltgun wouldn't be the way to do it.

I could get into Serpent vs Razorback, but we're well off topic.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 22:19:27


Post by: Martel732


Better than specialists at things that don't matter.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/10 23:47:36


Post by: Infantryman


All this discussion makes me glad I didn't dust off my old Marines when I came back to the game.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 05:15:29


Post by: Torga_DW


Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 05:42:08


Post by: Infantryman


Hm, there's an idea - Marines getting extra bolter range to represent one component of their enhanced training. Not only do they hit more often (BS) but they can do so from further...

As for the bolter, Special Ammo is cool from one approach but it appears as if the culture is against more rules / extra dice at the moment.

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 06:01:50


Post by: Torga_DW


 Infantryman wrote:
Hm, there's an idea - Marines getting extra bolter range to represent one component of their enhanced training. Not only do they hit more often (BS) but they can do so from further...

As for the bolter, Special Ammo is cool from one approach but it appears as if the culture is against more rules / extra dice at the moment.

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.


Yeah, more rules / extra dice is a problem, i won't deny it. But the problem with -1 AP is it doesn't affect relative weight of fire. 30 guardsmen with good rolls can potentially kill 30 targets. For the same price (more), 10 marines can only potentially kill 10 targets, and that includes good rolls. -1 AP works against average/heavy infantry, but does nothing against hordes. The problem is creating an 'elite' infantry unit that is effective against both.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 06:19:22


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Actually, IH and Uthwe both add the same exact factor to the survivability. It's a flat multiplier that maths out the same across point values and survivability. A .16% increase in survivability for both sides. Makes it easier to compare by using the same Tactic on both sides.

For the RG/Alaitoc, it gets worse for the DAs. The Marines might eat the -1 when they get the alpha against the DAs. Otherwise, any turn in which DAs shoot at Marines, Marines can move within 12". Conversely, however, if DAs ever move within 12", Marines get a 6" charge if they want it (then destroy DAs in CC after shooting). Otherwise, Marines get the RG buff every round. Skewing the comparision in Marines' favor in the head-to-head comparison.

The problem with adding specialization to Tac Marines (or generalizsts in general), is that they're still better than the other specialists at everything else. So now you want Marines to beat the other troops even harder in one category, while beating most troops at most other categories anyways?

Tac Marines actually can bully Fire Warriors even harder than Dire Avengers. If you have some Tacs in charge range of FW, and you have over half their number, you would kick their butts. Why on earth would you think they couldn't?

Many people don't think Tac Marines need a fix. And others think changing the Boltgun wouldn't be the way to do it.

I could get into Serpent vs Razorback, but we're well off topic.

I know it adds flat survivability. What I'm saying is it's the worst overall for each army. At least Eldar get it on everything instead of just their Dread equivalents. That's an entirely different topic though.

And yeah of course if you have more points of ANYTHING going into melee vs Fire Warriors those units will win. The question is on efficiency though. For an equivalent of points, how much better are the Tactical Marines than anyone else?
With an equal amount of attacks, Dire Avengers kill .83 Fire Warriors, Guard Infantry kill .63, and Tactical Marines kill...1.1.
So basically any shooty unit can bully Fire Warriors. The numbers then become 1.1, .83, and 1.5 for Guard Infantry. Tactical Marines are better bullies, but clearly not by much. So when people say to bully shooty units with them...well you can bully any shooty unit with anybody! These are also with an equal amount of attacks.

The point being they're honestly not outshooting outmeleeing anything like you think they are for the price. They're barely killing Orks and Gaunts (one of which has a Codex entry now) at shooting for the price and it isn't like they're running away and shooting at all. You say buffing the generalist is a terrible idea because they're beating other troops in other categories, but the truth is that they really aren't. Not on paper and certainly not in practice.

Also the people that don't think Tactical Marines need a fix are the people not playing tournaments or people that are forever angry that Marines get all the attention product-wise. That's why we don't listen to these people. Anything works in the most casual setting. Otherwise this Subforum and the Tactics Subforum might as well not exist.

Also we don't need to get into the whole Razorback thing because I'm pretty sure everyone and their mother knows it's undercosted at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Infantryman wrote:
Hm, there's an idea - Marines getting extra bolter range to represent one component of their enhanced training. Not only do they hit more often (BS) but they can do so from further...

As for the bolter, Special Ammo is cool from one approach but it appears as if the culture is against more rules / extra dice at the moment.

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.

I'm against AP-1 because straight up better AP is the gimmick of Necrons. My line of thought is that Shuriken Weapons use precision to go through armor and effectively ignore it with a well placed shot, whereas a well placed Bolter round is basically like hitting a guy in armor with a blunt weapon where it can just not make the armor effective for protecting the guy inside. Then you have Gauss which is fancy green lightning bolts that just hit things better overall without any real training needed by the main grunts, and then you got Immortals at 17 a piece (which really is fair, but they don't have transports. That's a different topic though as a Necron player as well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 06:34:32


Post by: Torga_DW


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).


Well, far be it from *me* to question their game design. But adding rules just to sell 1c models? Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. And i'm happy to godwin a thread, or make uncomfortable comparisons. Deathwatch have problems as a stand-alone army? I won't say i'm shocked, i'll just politely infer it and move on.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 06:44:15


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Torga_DW wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).


Well, far be it from *me* to question their game design. But adding rules just to sell 1c models? Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. And i'm happy to godwin a thread, or make uncomfortable comparisons. Deathwatch have problems as a stand-alone army? I won't say i'm shocked, i'll just politely infer it and move on.

I'm actually not sure how Deathwatch are doing. Nobody talks about them here but the Index didn't really get my hopes up on them. I certainly haven't seen any interesting lists in tournaments using an allied detachment of them once. Not saying it didn't happen, but that's the kinda stuff that gets brought up here.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 07:00:23


Post by: Torga_DW


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, i know no-one wants to mention my earlier post. But what i took from it is that marines lose more points per engagement (while doing significantly less dps).

My fix is the same as before: special ammunition.
Marines may add +/-1 (as relevant) to their weapon stat when shooting, or +6" range. Suddenly marines have a relatively decent dps, despite their low model count / points lost per shooting phase. 2 shots at 24", or 3 shots at 12", or -1 ap, etc etc.

Special Ammo is such a Deathwatch thing though. That's part of their whole gimmick, as useless as some of the options are (there is maybe ONE situation to use the +1 Hit against units in Cover round...maybe?).


Well, far be it from *me* to question their game design. But adding rules just to sell 1c models? Yeah, i'm not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. And i'm happy to godwin a thread, or make uncomfortable comparisons. Deathwatch have problems as a stand-alone army? I won't say i'm shocked, i'll just politely infer it and move on.

I'm actually not sure how Deathwatch are doing. Nobody talks about them here but the Index didn't really get my hopes up on them. I certainly haven't seen any interesting lists in tournaments using an allied detachment of them once. Not saying it didn't happen, but that's the kinda stuff that gets brought up here.


Well, me personally i'd approach it from a fluff perspective..... what are deathwatch? To me (and this will vary on interpretation), they're marines with special weapon options. They're designed to kill xenos more efficiently than other imperial forces - what does that mean? They're cheaper? They hit 'harder'? I appreciate gw's 3rd edition approach which was - we don't know what they're about, so we won't do it. They're basically marines. How do you specialize in killing xenos (as opposed to say demons?). They seem more in line with "we've made a kit, now buy it!". But this is all a tangent, and yet strangely relevant. My opinion is: if fixing something treads on the toes of something else, than maybe something else needs fixing too. But i'm just a random mook, and i seriously doubt gw will read/pay attention to this.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 12:21:03


Post by: fraser1191


 Infantryman wrote:

Would it really be so bad to give it -1 AP? Even if that would not fix it, it would be a start. Then again, that's a lot of Codices to change.


Easy just give the marines a special rule where they have a bonus point of ap when using a bolter. They have a codex they know the weaknesses of the other races


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This should help marines across the board too


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 14:11:02


Post by: Haravikk


So I've been giving this some more thought, and I think I've finally come up with the perfect special rule:

Spoiler:
Every time you mistakenly call bolts bullets, suffer D6 casualties randomly distributed among models armed with bolter weapons. If while rolling to hit with bolters you can do a really good impression of the noise that they make, you may convert one miss into an automatic hit.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 15:06:12


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


That gets my seal of approval
/end


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 15:12:28


Post by: BaconCatBug


I like the idea of a rule giving all ADEPTUS ASTARTES either -1AP or a Shuriken style rending rule with a "bolt weapon".


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/11 22:01:35


Post by: 123ply


Bolters should re roll wound rolls of one.
That way, space marines armies can finally match eldat shuriken weapons, caude if shuriken weapons havr special rules, bolters shiuld too.
It also wont affect them too much because of leiutenants and other ways to reroll wounds.
Its just a way to make marines more competertive AND realistic without character support.

Whatever people come up with, i can almost guarantee itll be better than what GW can come up with... i swear, its as if Games Workshop traded competency and creativity for reliability, responsiveness and simplicity


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/20 23:15:36


Post by: skchsan


The most problematic of the bolt weapon family is boltguns. Bring back salvo weapon type and make boltguns salvo 1/2 24" and leave it S4AP0. Leave the double tap to storm bolters since you rarely move tac squad so you can double tap anyways... This way Tac squads can properly "hold objectives"


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 15:41:14


Post by: Bharring


They tried making Shuriken the same as Bolter, minus the profile differences. For over half of 6E, Shuriken was S4AP5 no special rules. And no Shuriken weapon was worth taking.

Without a difference in rules, Shuriken Catapaults were simply worse Boltguns. Even in the Index, Guardians were considered bad even by Tac Marine standards. And the Codex didn't change them.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 16:30:49


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


You're still talking about the Shuriken Catapult as the equivalent to the Bolter.

For the last time, you need to compare the Avenger one to the Bolter.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 16:41:09


Post by: Bharring


So you say, but how does that work out?

Should the Dire Avenger really be just a Marine with worse everything but gun?

Dire Avengers have better guns, but half the survivability, worse at CC, and no ability to take specials/heavies.

How would it be fair for the Marine to also have better stock weapons? They're only 1ppm more expensive.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 16:48:44


Post by: Eihnlazer


Bolt weapons: On a 6 to wound deal 2 dmg.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 21:16:40


Post by: Panzergraf


That would make them twice as good against vehicles, where they often only wound on 6's anyway.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 22:22:18


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
So you say, but how does that work out?

Should the Dire Avenger really be just a Marine with worse everything but gun?

Dire Avengers have better guns, but half the survivability, worse at CC, and no ability to take specials/heavies.

How would it be fair for the Marine to also have better stock weapons? They're only 1ppm more expensive.

Um I say that because the stats and roles for the units that carry them aren't equal at all.

Dire Avengers are more a Marine battle role, and Guardians are more a Scout battle role in terms of price and similar equipment options.
Bolter is to the Avenger Shuriken Catapult, and the Shotgun is to the Shuriken Catapult.

This. Is. Not. Difficult.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/21 22:29:58


Post by: Bharring


Then are you going to be paying the 20ppm or so the Tac Marine would need to pay per model to balance out having the Avenger Shuriken Catapault, if you want to bump the Boltgun to that level?

Dire Avengers play the same role as combi/plas Tac squads, for about the same firepower and survivability per point. As is, currently.

How would it be remotely balanced to buff Tac Marines firepower to that of things with half their durability for about the same points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me put it another way.

The WaveSerpent and the LandRaider are both heavy transports with heavy weapons. But the Serpent shouldn't get the firepower of the Land Raider. Might be the same role, but the LandRaider is much heavier.

The BL WaveSerpent and LC Razorback both are the same slot. The Razorback has better firepower. Just because they're the same slot doesn't mean the WaveSerpent's guns should be upgraded to LCs for no points change.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 00:47:33


Post by: Wyldhunt


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bharring wrote:
So you say, but how does that work out?

Should the Dire Avenger really be just a Marine with worse everything but gun?

Dire Avengers have better guns, but half the survivability, worse at CC, and no ability to take specials/heavies.

How would it be fair for the Marine to also have better stock weapons? They're only 1ppm more expensive.

Um I say that because the stats and roles for the units that carry them aren't equal at all.

Dire Avengers are more a Marine battle role, and Guardians are more a Scout battle role in terms of price and similar equipment options.
Bolter is to the Avenger Shuriken Catapult, and the Shotgun is to the Shuriken Catapult.

This. Is. Not. Difficult.


Eh. I think we should all pause and acknowledge a certain amount of "apples vs oranges" here. The units involved are different enough from one another to make direct comparisons a little bit sketchy. Plus, we've trod and retrod this ground plenty of times in different threads.

Scouts with snipers are pretty comparable to rangers.
Scouts with bolters are probably closer to dire avengers based on their armor saves and effective range. It's also worth pointing out that not being able to infiltrate (without a stratagem) makes short-ranged scouts much more viable than short-ranged guardians.
Tactical marines are probably closer to dire avengers than our other troops and have better survivability (higher toughness matters against small arms, and a 2+ save in cover isn't shabby), but have to buy special weapons to perform as well as avengers against hardier targets.
Tactical marines combat squadded with a single heavy weapon are kind of comparable to guardians with a platform. Both usually want to sit on an objective and see if their big gun gets lucky.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 10:46:13


Post by: warpedpig


I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 14:12:12


Post by: Bharring


Should a wall of Tacticals be a good choice for bringing the big stuff down? Isn't that what Melta should be for?

(Not that Melta is necessarily effective enough in Tac Marines hands, just that that should be the right tool for that job)


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 14:23:42


Post by: Infantryman


warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.


The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 14:34:30


Post by: Bharring


You might get a legion of greybeards who don't like changing one of the defining pieces of Codex Astartes.

It wouldn't invalidate any current configuration. But most Marines players would need to restructure their armies (many would need to repaint, some might even need to remodel).

On a competitive level, that might be one of the more balanced changes, though. You can have more dakka, and of the type you want. But you have to pay for it.

Some of the finer points would warrant some attention (Flamers still crap, spammed Plasma might be too good).


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 23:04:57


Post by: Tygre


If you change the Tactical basic loadout it is like changing Chapter size. Like it or not, it has been part of background fluff since at least 2nd ed, and IMHO we shouldn't change background fluff because of the current meta.

I guess that makes me a greybeard.

I think that Bolt weapons doing +1dmg on a 6 is thematic of what they are; 0.75cal grenades that penetrate and then explode.

For anti horde work; maybe Whirlswinds need an adjustment.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/22 23:32:03


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Infantryman wrote:
warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.


The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.

Tactical Marine loadout fixes are in another thread. The best one I saw was you get two weapons at a total of 6 dudes, and 3 at 10. It's great because every other variation had been a number divisible by 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

Makes 2 wound models less good and really isn't a core fix to the Bolt round that makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tygre wrote:
If you change the Tactical basic loadout it is like changing Chapter size. Like it or not, it has been part of background fluff since at least 2nd ed, and IMHO we shouldn't change background fluff because of the current meta.

I guess that makes me a greybeard.

I think that Bolt weapons doing +1dmg on a 6 is thematic of what they are; 0.75cal grenades that penetrate and then explode.

For anti horde work; maybe Whirlswinds need an adjustment.

You mean the part of the fluff nobody used? With 10 man squads?

You really think there's anything of value lost there?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/23 12:41:15


Post by: Haravikk


This thread seems to keep going around and around in circles, and the suggestion that I see the most is that Bolters should get 2 damage on 6's to-Wound; while I get the rationale for this, it doesn't really solve any of the basic problems that mostly bolter armed units have. It also puts the bolter in a weird space where it would consistently do better damage against things it should struggle to wound (you're wounding on 6's against vehicles etc. anyway), so it's actually pretty strange mechanically.

Thinking about it some more I think my preferred solution might be a rule as follows:

On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.


It's similar to but not quite the same as double damage; since it inflicts an extra hit it has far more potential against weaker, easy to wound hordes, and while you can inflict more damage against multi-wound targets, it's less likely against vehicles etc. (as you still need to roll to-Wound for the extra hits).

In terms of impact, this basically gives you an extra 1/6th hits; so for your average 10-man tactical squad (pistol + CCW sergeant, special, heavy + 7 bolters) it's nearly equivalent to having an extra 1-2 bolter equipped models (since the bonus hits are automatic). The effect is even more pronounced for models with storm bolters, like terminator squads, or a four heavy bolters devastator squad.

In fluff terms it represents the same thing; explosive bolts catching a target with additional damage either due to a better initial hit, flying shrapnel etc., but is more versatile than double damage mechanically. Massed bolters would hurt hordes a lot more, and rules to bolster shooting will amplify it (i.e- re-rolling 1's to hit means more chances at rolling a 6).

I don't think there's anything that would become too OP with this change, indeed most of the units this would improve are under-powered at the moment anyway.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 00:39:26


Post by: pelicaniforce


 Haravikk wrote:
This thread seems to keep going around and around in circles, and the suggestion that I see the most is that Bolters should get 2 damage on 6's to-Wound; while I get the rationale for this, it doesn't really solve any of the basic problems that mostly bolter armed units have. It also puts the bolter in a weird space where it would consistently do better damage against things it should struggle to wound (you're wounding on 6's against vehicles etc. anyway), so it's actually pretty strange mechanically.

Thinking about it some more I think my preferred solution might be a rule as follows:

On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.


It's similar to but not quite the same as double damage; since it inflicts an extra hit it has far more potential against weaker, easy to wound hordes, and while you can inflict more damage against multi-wound targets, it's less likely against vehicles etc. (as you still need to roll to-Wound for the extra hits).

In terms of impact, this basically gives you an extra 1/6th hits; so for your average 10-man tactical squad (pistol + CCW sergeant, special, heavy + 7 bolters) it's nearly equivalent to having an extra 1-2 bolter equipped models (since the bonus hits are automatic). The effect is even more pronounced for models with storm bolters, like terminator squads, or a four heavy bolters devastator squad.

In fluff terms it represents the same thing; explosive bolts catching a target with additional damage either due to a better initial hit, flying shrapnel etc., but is more versatile than double damage mechanically. Massed bolters would hurt hordes a lot more, and rules to bolster shooting will amplify it (i.e- re-rolling 1's to hit means more chances at rolling a 6).

I don't think there's anything that would become too OP with this change, indeed most of the units this would improve are under-powered at the moment anyway.


This is the best take. It has no special rolls, it works on w1 units, it doesn't distort value against vehicles.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 07:35:11


Post by: NH Gunsmith


 Haravikk wrote:
Spoiler:
This thread seems to keep going around and around in circles, and the suggestion that I see the most is that Bolters should get 2 damage on 6's to-Wound; while I get the rationale for this, it doesn't really solve any of the basic problems that mostly bolter armed units have. It also puts the bolter in a weird space where it would consistently do better damage against things it should struggle to wound (you're wounding on 6's against vehicles etc. anyway), so it's actually pretty strange mechanically.

Thinking about it some more I think my preferred solution might be a rule as follows:


On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.


It's similar to but not quite the same as double damage; since it inflicts an extra hit it has far more potential against weaker, easy to wound hordes, and while you can inflict more damage against multi-wound targets, it's less likely against vehicles etc. (as you still need to roll to-Wound for the extra hits).

In terms of impact, this basically gives you an extra 1/6th hits; so for your average 10-man tactical squad (pistol + CCW sergeant, special, heavy + 7 bolters) it's nearly equivalent to having an extra 1-2 bolter equipped models (since the bonus hits are automatic). The effect is even more pronounced for models with storm bolters, like terminator squads, or a four heavy bolters devastator squad.

In fluff terms it represents the same thing; explosive bolts catching a target with additional damage either due to a better initial hit, flying shrapnel etc., but is more versatile than double damage mechanically. Massed bolters would hurt hordes a lot more, and rules to bolster shooting will amplify it (i.e- re-rolling 1's to hit means more chances at rolling a 6).

I don't think there's anything that would become too OP with this change, indeed most of the units this would improve are under-powered at the moment anyway.


That really does seem to be the best "fix" I have seen so far. Since it is simple, and provides a bit more crowd control for Marines.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 10:05:51


Post by: tneva82


 Infantryman wrote:
warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.


The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.


So fixing bolters happen by...Removing bolters from squads basically completely. 5 man squad with combi-weapon, 2 special, heavy and whopping ONE bolter!

Don't know you but for me removing weapon basically out of equation is rather funny way of fixing it.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 17:28:10


Post by: Infantryman


tneva82 wrote:
 Infantryman wrote:
warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.


The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.


So fixing bolters happen by...Removing bolters from squads basically completely. 5 man squad with combi-weapon, 2 special, heavy and whopping ONE bolter!

Don't know you but for me removing weapon basically out of equation is rather funny way of fixing it.


Yeah, that post was meant for the 10-man-squad thread. There was some overlap and I had them both up at the same time, so you can see how I got things crossed up.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 17:33:26


Post by: Panzergraf


 Haravikk wrote:
On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.


I like it!
Simple and elegant, it does what it's supposed to, without going overboard and affecting things it shouldn't.

As a bonus, you don't need to do any extra rolls, just add more dice when you roll to wound.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 19:21:15


Post by: ItsPug


You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/24 21:03:54


Post by: NH Gunsmith


ItsPug wrote:
You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"


That is interesting too. Would you make any similar changes to the Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter? And would Hurricane Bolters on vehicles be affected by this?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/29 20:40:37


Post by: skchsan


ItsPug wrote:
You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"
I think Salvo 1/3 24" would work better.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 04:00:48


Post by: Torga_DW


 skchsan wrote:
ItsPug wrote:
You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"
I think Salvo 1/3 24" would work better.


I'd rather see salvo 2/3 24". That at least fits his idea.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 13:04:52


Post by: fraser1191


I prefer the idea of just marines having 6s to hit generate an additional hit. That way it will upgrade the boltgun and whatever weapons they take


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my opinion i dont think sisters or other models using bolt weapons are as bad off as marines, at least point wise


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 13:49:25


Post by: Martel732


Sisters are downright terrifying, imo. Marines pay the marine tax and then get armed with boltguns.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 16:10:08


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are downright terrifying, imo. Marines pay the marine tax and then get armed with boltguns.

All that said, the hits to Flamers and Melta Guns made them much less terrifying.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 16:21:33


Post by: Martel732


If you say so. Melta is better in terms of range, imo.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 17:21:48


Post by: skchsan


Been a part of discussion since page 1, but I am getting kind of lost - exactly what is it about S4 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire that's so detestable?

S4 can potentially, reliably wound anything in the T3~T7 range. Is the problem simply because other factions have higher S basic weapons?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 17:25:42


Post by: Martel732


The gun is lackluster given the costs to field them at 13ppm. They are effective on a sister, but not a marine. The effectiveness of marines against t5+ is actually very low given the small body count of marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The real fix for bolters is cheaper marines. Because they aren't effective at 13ppm.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 17:47:50


Post by: skchsan


Martel732 wrote:
The gun is lackluster given the costs to field them at 13ppm. They are effective on a sister, but not a marine. The effectiveness of marines against t5+ is actually very low given the small body count of marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The real fix for bolters is cheaper marines. Because they aren't effective at 13ppm.


So its not the gun, but the platform?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 17:51:05


Post by: Martel732


That's my current line of thinking. Marines pay for marginally useful cc stats and end up woefully outgunned.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 18:00:53


Post by: Infantryman


 skchsan wrote:
Been a part of discussion since page 1, but I am getting kind of lost - exactly what is it about S4 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire that's so detestable?

S4 can potentially, reliably wound anything in the T3~T7 range. Is the problem simply because other factions have higher S basic weapons?


For me, it's just that there's a whiplash between it ignoring Flak Armor of yester-year and coming to today, where it is completely stopped by flak armor. I think a .75 cal explosive bolt should be some bit more punchy.

Do Marines get ammo types anymore? I haven't gotten any of their Codices yet. Maybe that would make it more attractive - add some AP shells, extra hit on 6 shells, etc. for Marines - as mentioned, the biggest real issue is that the bolter is coupled with expensive Marines...and they don't do great on expensive Marines. Marines aren't very killy with their bolters.

As a Guardsman, I'm fine with paying 1 point to give my 4-point Sergeants a bolter - in my case, it lets my squad hit a little harder and a little further than it otherwise would.

Not so attractive at a 13 or 15 point Marine.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 18:19:50


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Different ammo types only exist with Deathwatch.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 18:35:54


Post by: Grey Templar


Maybe they should have made a distinction between Boltguns and Astartes Boltguns. In the RPG's there is a difference between a human sized boltgun and a space marine sized boltgun. The Space Marine version has the Tearing quality, which was roll twice for damage and pick the highest.

There is a difference between Primaris Bolt Rifles and Space Marine Bolters. Why not a difference between a human and a space marine bolter to make up the point difference?

Something like,

Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen- Rapid Fire

Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen - Pistol

Astartes Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

Astartes Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen -1 Pistol

Bolt Rifle: Attack 1 Range 30: Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

So the Astartes Bolter would gain penetration over a human bolter. And the bolt rifle would gain pen and range.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 18:57:57


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


That's kinda what the Primaris are going for but I don't want to step on their toes.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 19:21:27


Post by: Infantryman


 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe they should have made a distinction between Boltguns and Astartes Boltguns. In the RPG's there is a difference between a human sized boltgun and a space marine sized boltgun. The Space Marine version has the Tearing quality, which was roll twice for damage and pick the highest.

There is a difference between Primaris Bolt Rifles and Space Marine Bolters. Why not a difference between a human and a space marine bolter to make up the point difference?

Something like,

Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen- Rapid Fire

Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen - Pistol

Astartes Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

Astartes Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen -1 Pistol

Bolt Rifle: Attack 1 Range 30: Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

So the Astartes Bolter would gain penetration over a human bolter. And the bolt rifle would gain pen and range.


I'm generally fine with this. One of the reasons I chose the Phobos pattern Bolter for my army's Sergeants is because they're lower caliber than the more famous Godwyn pattern :p

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 19:21:29


Post by: Bharring


Also, that's basically Gauss.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 19:25:39


Post by: Martel732


The fundamental disagreement comes with someone who takes the position that the CC stats are more than marginally useful. Given how many games I'm getting shot off the table while doing inconsequential damage in return, I think the CC stats can be largely ignored when pricing the models. How much more effective is a marine than a sister in 8th? I would argue they aren't at all.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 19:28:48


Post by: Bharring


On the flipside, I'm not sure how fair it is to buff Tac shooting to about the same range as units that cost the same but have half the durability. AP-1 is a fairly big buff.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 19:29:45


Post by: Martel732


Bharring wrote:
On the flipside, I'm not sure how fair it is to buff Tac shooting to about the same range as units that cost the same but have half the durability. AP-1 is a fairly big buff.


No, leave marines the same. Just make them cheaper to make up for how ineffective they are in general. There is no real mathematical space to buff the bolter in 8th.

Also, those units usually have much more than half the durability. How much better is a marine at soaking up overcharge plasma than a dire avenger? Only fractionally. Now realize these weapons get spammed and the fabled marine durability fades away.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/11/30 19:55:09


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Bharring wrote:
Also, that's basically Gauss.

Which is my ultimate problem with just bumping the AP on them as well.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 01:03:49


Post by: Eihnlazer


They probably just should have done AP correctly.

AP 5 = -1
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5

If they had done this, they wouldn't have had to reduce the cost of models so much to make up for lack of effectiveness.

Instead, AP5 basically does nothing this edition so they were forced to reduce the points of models to compensate.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 01:07:25


Post by: skchsan


 Eihnlazer wrote:
They probably just should have done AP correctly.

AP 5 = -1
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5

If they had done this, they wouldn't have had to reduce the cost of models so much to make up for lack of effectiveness.

Instead, AP5 basically does nothing this edition so they were forced to reduce the points of models to compensate.


Can you be specific on what went down? To my knowledge everythig went up in cost with new wound count balance and raised the standard pts from 1850 to 2000


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 01:09:38


Post by: Eihnlazer


points per model went down almost universally. Great for GW since they sell more models, bad for us who have to buy more models.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 01:11:37


Post by: skchsan


 Eihnlazer wrote:
points per model went down almost universally. Great for GW since they sell more models, bad for us who have to buy more models.
Of what? Only thing that went down were conscripts and grot and the likes? Rhino went up by ~25 pts, razorbacks by 30, droppods 50, etc

Bikes went up 10, attack bike 30, landspeeders 70, broadsides currently unusable, crisis suits too expensive,

In a nutshell hordes got hordier and elites stayed elite but more expensive


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 14:00:00


Post by: Bharring


Loyalist Tac Marines went down from 14 ppm to 13 ppm.

Back on topic, if they had used a more negative AP chart, that would have hurt Tacs more than most other troops. Because AP-1 does a *lot* more to a 3+/2+ in cover save than a 5+/4+ in cover save.

Could you imagine the rage if things like LasBlasters were reducing Marine saves to a 4+? Tacs would be much, much worse off.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 14:21:39


Post by: Martel732


Tacs just need to be cheaper. That's all.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 14:23:12


Post by: Bharring


And/or the stuff that kills them needs to cost more.

GW tried basically all the regular requests for Tacs:
-2W
-All-specials in squads
-Ap-1 guns
-D:2 guns
And called them Primaris.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 14:24:35


Post by: Martel732


Which are far too expensive. The marine curse. Maybe they'll play better after CA. But for now, primaris is a joke.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 16:23:41


Post by: fraser1191


Well Its now a 5 point difference between a tactical and an interseccor thanks to CA
Which I mean it kinda puts you in a position to take them over tacticals


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since they dropped interseccors 2 points, I was expecting the same treatment to Tacticals but noop


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 17:10:07


Post by: niv-mizzet


Marines are mis-equipped.

The boltgun in its current form is a "quantity over quality" weapon, only good when used in numbers. The issue is that it is equipped on guys that are supposed to be "quality over quantity" troops. This situation is never going to be righted unless the gun becomes a more quality weapon, or the unit becomes a more quantity unit.

A possible solution would be to give "Astartes boltguns" the ability to "stand and shoot: If this model did not move in its previous movement phase, the boltgun becomes rapid fire 2." It would let them emulate having the weight of fire that the gun needs to be relevant, without making marines a horde unit.

I would personally like to see all marines gain an extra attack in melee so that they can go from awful to mediocre on that front. Currently their heightened WS and S stats are being made almost wholly irrelevant by the fact that they throw a single ap0 punch.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/01 21:59:32


Post by: Torga_DW


 niv-mizzet wrote:
Marines are mis-equipped.

The boltgun in its current form is a "quantity over quality" weapon, only good when used in numbers. The issue is that it is equipped on guys that are supposed to be "quality over quantity" troops. This situation is never going to be righted unless the gun becomes a more quality weapon, or the unit becomes a more quantity unit.

A possible solution would be to give "Astartes boltguns" the ability to "stand and shoot: If this model did not move in its previous movement phase, the boltgun becomes rapid fire 2." It would let them emulate having the weight of fire that the gun needs to be relevant, without making marines a horde unit.

I would personally like to see all marines gain an extra attack in melee so that they can go from awful to mediocre on that front. Currently their heightened WS and S stats are being made almost wholly irrelevant by the fact that they throw a single ap0 punch.


Yeah, this is one of the basic problems with marines. They're a low-numbers 'elite' army with high-numbers 'quantity of attack' weapons in most cases. The useful exceptions being units with actual high numbers weapons (like asscan razors). I don't like the idea of having different versions of bolt weapons, i don't like that primaris marines have a 'bolt rifle' instead of a 'bolt gun' (that one bothers me on a number of different levels - a rifle is a gun, a pistol is a gun, gah i'll stop myself here before i start a trump-styled rant). And yeah, one of my proposed fixes was to give tactical squads chainswords so they get that +1 attack in melee. But that was another thread.

Looking at just bolt guns (ergh) in isolation, i could get behind your idea. It would help in their anti-infantry ability, which is what marine infantry is sorely lacking. While they're decent at providing hits with what they have, their overall damage potential/ceiling is ridiculously low compared to most other units.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 02:18:01


Post by: BaconCatBug


If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 02:27:45


Post by: Vitali Advenil


 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.


I think that's pretty fair. The fact that bolters are questionably worse than ork shootas is kind of odd. They need some kind of "bite" to them.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 03:48:30


Post by: fraser1191


Yeah it seems like the codex just had the new rules applied, such as ap adjustment, and formations turned into stratagems. But then there was no real input for adjustment cause they were trying to get as many out as possible


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 04:06:03


Post by: Infantryman


(Can we buff the Bolters in my Guard squads as well?)

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 04:09:33


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Infantryman wrote:
(Can we buff the Bolters in my Guard squads as well?)

M.

I wanted my change implemented for all Bolt Weapons.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 04:48:39


Post by: Infantryman


Gah I did not quote BaconCatBug like I intended :|

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 13:11:02


Post by: niv-mizzet


 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.


Never underestimate how much people hate Astartes on the internet.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 15:17:48


Post by: MalfunctBot


What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 15:19:10


Post by: Mr Morden


 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.


I am sure you meant all Bolters including Adepta Sororitas.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 17:34:28


Post by: fraser1191


MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.


I actually like that!
With that nobody would complain that bolters would be "too good against vehicles"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This would be a good idea for even tau fire warriors that also took a hit after 7th


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 18:07:36


Post by: Insectum7


Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 19:24:37


Post by: Infantryman


 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.


Nah I'd still have infantry in my Guard.

M.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/02 19:37:52


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 03:48:32


Post by: Torga_DW


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.


Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 03:51:25


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Torga_DW wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.


Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

Yeah and I'm not taking anyone seriously that alpha strikes with Tactical Marines and has success nobody else does with them, yet says they simply can't make time to do a major tournament once.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 04:17:06


Post by: Insectum7


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 04:23:24


Post by: JNAProductions


 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?


Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 04:23:42


Post by: Insectum7


 Infantryman wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.


Nah I'd still have infantry in my Guard.

M.


Yeah? Some would, I'm sure. Though I'd expect usage to drop some and I'd rather it didn't. Just looking for a balance. AP 5 butchered GEQ out of cover last edition, and I just didn't see many Guardsmen in recent years. Now, particularly with the recent hits againt Commissars I get the feeling that massed casualties would result, making for less GEQ types on the table again, after only 6ish months of a revival.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?


Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.


Right, but the proposal is that they are allowed no save.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 04:25:40


Post by: JNAProductions


Which still leaves them with two distinct advantages over where they were at before.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 04:34:20


Post by: Insectum7


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.


Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

Yeah and I'm not taking anyone seriously that alpha strikes with Tactical Marines and has success nobody else does with them, yet says they simply can't make time to do a major tournament once.


Thats Alpha Strikes with weapon-dense Tactical Combat Squads, Devastators, Chapter Master and Lieutenant, mind you. 36 Grav Cannon shots and 16 Combi Plasma shots rerolling to hit/1's to wound, after landing in cover, and sometimes using the Pods to block LOS against return fire. And sometimes assaulting with certain elements afterwards to mitigate more return fire.

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Which still leaves them with two distinct advantages over where they were at before.


Fair call. But imo the flipside is that twin linked weapons get more shots, marines have access to rerolls, morale kills guys during firefights, the marine only Assault Cannon was upped by 2 shots, and marines can make more use of their generalist nature by being able to assault after firing. Also the Grav Cannon wounds them on 3s rather than 5s, making it straight better than a heavy bolter against GEQs. I'll throw in Storm Bolters getting double the shots at close range and being able to assault after deep strike.

And primaris with 2 wounds and an AP -1 were introduced.

There's just a lot more going on besides 'dps'. I approach with caution.

Edit again: Has anyone noticed that IG tanks mostly have single weapons, while many marine tanks have twin linked ones?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 04:50:52


Post by: Torga_DW


 Insectum7 wrote:

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


*your local meta*. I did hellishly well in my local meta, and went to a tournament and got roflstomped. I sucked, absolutely sucked. When you're edge-testing the extremes of the game, it's important to note how you're doing *locally* vs how you're doing to *everyone else*. What bothers me, is that GW might be designing the game based on localized data vs *the rest of the world* data. That's not how you balance a game. If i make a list that sucks - i deserve to suck. That's partly on me, and partly on gw for the game they designed. My point is - local meta doesn't mean sh*t when you're exposed to the rest of the world vs the game rules. I sucked - i own that. And that's precisely why i don't attribute personal fortune with the overall balance of the game.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 05:27:05


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Infantryman wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.


Nah I'd still have infantry in my Guard.

M.


Yeah? Some would, I'm sure. Though I'd expect usage to drop some and I'd rather it didn't. Just looking for a balance. AP 5 butchered GEQ out of cover last edition, and I just didn't see many Guardsmen in recent years. Now, particularly with the recent hits againt Commissars I get the feeling that massed casualties would result, making for less GEQ types on the table again, after only 6ish months of a revival.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?


Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.


Right, but the proposal is that they are allowed no save.

The proposal in that post is no save on the wounding of 6+, which is what Eldar do on a lot of weapons against Guard.

Which is why I gotta ask how this would stop Guard from fielding Infantry if Eldar didn't stop that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.


Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

Yeah and I'm not taking anyone seriously that alpha strikes with Tactical Marines and has success nobody else does with them, yet says they simply can't make time to do a major tournament once.


Thats Alpha Strikes with weapon-dense Tactical Combat Squads, Devastators, Chapter Master and Lieutenant, mind you. 36 Grav Cannon shots and 16 Combi Plasma shots rerolling to hit/1's to wound, after landing in cover, and sometimes using the Pods to block LOS against return fire. And sometimes assaulting with certain elements afterwards to mitigate more return fire.

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Which still leaves them with two distinct advantages over where they were at before.


Fair call. But imo the flipside is that twin linked weapons get more shots, marines have access to rerolls, morale kills guys during firefights, the marine only Assault Cannon was upped by 2 shots, and marines can make more use of their generalist nature by being able to assault after firing. Also the Grav Cannon wounds them on 3s rather than 5s, making it straight better than a heavy bolter against GEQs. I'll throw in Storm Bolters getting double the shots at close range and being able to assault after deep strike.

And primaris with 2 wounds and an AP -1 were introduced.

There's just a lot more going on besides 'dps'. I approach with caution.

Edit again: Has anyone noticed that IG tanks mostly have single weapons, while many marine tanks have twin linked ones?

Pfft, I could run Tyberos in 6th/7th edition on occasion and have him not die if my locals were more casual that day. This is why I don't care about your locals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?


Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.

Don't forget my point about Platoons not being a thing anymore either.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 05:51:28


Post by: Insectum7


MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.


@Slayer: There's no mention of rolling a 6 here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Torga_DW wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


*your local meta*. I did hellishly well in my local meta, and went to a tournament and got roflstomped. I sucked, absolutely sucked. When you're edge-testing the extremes of the game, it's important to note how you're doing *locally* vs how you're doing to *everyone else*. What bothers me, is that GW might be designing the game based on localized data vs *the rest of the world* data. That's not how you balance a game. If i make a list that sucks - i deserve to suck. That's partly on me, and partly on gw for the game they designed. My point is - local meta doesn't mean sh*t when you're exposed to the rest of the world vs the game rules. I sucked - i own that. And that's precisely why i don't attribute personal fortune with the overall balance of the game.


That's great and fine, but we also have to reconcile the fact that their product is largely intended for local metas, and that the greater use case in actuality is local metas, and that people may be coming to the forum to look for solutions regarding their local metas, and not tournaments.

I agree that tournaments are a data point, but its unarguably a myopic one. The game is played a myriad of ways, and the idea that it's in any way homogenous is absurd. Simply using different density of terrain changes the respective value of units, for example. Tournament play is certainly the most recorded, but I personally don't find their terrain setups ideal. Most I see are rather barren if you ask me.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 07:04:00


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.


@Slayer: There's no mention of rolling a 6 here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Torga_DW wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


*your local meta*. I did hellishly well in my local meta, and went to a tournament and got roflstomped. I sucked, absolutely sucked. When you're edge-testing the extremes of the game, it's important to note how you're doing *locally* vs how you're doing to *everyone else*. What bothers me, is that GW might be designing the game based on localized data vs *the rest of the world* data. That's not how you balance a game. If i make a list that sucks - i deserve to suck. That's partly on me, and partly on gw for the game they designed. My point is - local meta doesn't mean sh*t when you're exposed to the rest of the world vs the game rules. I sucked - i own that. And that's precisely why i don't attribute personal fortune with the overall balance of the game.


That's great and fine, but we also have to reconcile the fact that their product is largely intended for local metas, and that the greater use case in actuality is local metas, and that people may be coming to the forum to look for solutions regarding their local metas, and not tournaments.

I agree that tournaments are a data point, but its unarguably a myopic one. The game is played a myriad of ways, and the idea that it's in any way homogenous is absurd. Simply using different density of terrain changes the respective value of units, for example. Tournament play is certainly the most recorded, but I personally don't find their terrain setups ideal. Most I see are rather barren if you ask me.

Yeah that's not gonna stop people using Infantry. Mathematically you still don't kill a lot. 10 in rapid fire range is almost 9 dead. Or 36 points earned back.

It isn't like Sternguard are doing that spectacularly when ignoring that armor, and they're only maybe 4 or 5 points more. Sternguard are slightly popular, and yet that's not stopping Infantry or Gaunts being ran. Hmm.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 09:42:13


Post by: Mr Morden


If you want to reflect the fluff of bolters and Marines in particular (which is where the focus seems always to be focussed) you have to redesign the marines to be more like cinematic marines so they will cut swathes of enemy "mortals" down in a single burst - likely a single bolt.

But then the pts costs per marine need to rocket - and that not something GW wants even if it might be better for the game and certainly might in a less obsessive focus on Marine models over everything else.

The ideas above are interesting but also I don't think they will give people what they want and still will end up wanting to tweek it further to get what they want


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 13:04:34


Post by: Insectum7


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah that's not gonna stop people using Infantry. Mathematically you still don't kill a lot. 10 in rapid fire range is almost 9 dead. Or 36 points earned back.

It isn't like Sternguard are doing that spectacularly when ignoring that armor, and they're only maybe 4 or 5 points more. Sternguard are slightly popular, and yet that's not stopping Infantry or Gaunts being ran. Hmm.


That's not very convincing. Sternguard are 1 unit type, boltguns are on many. Casualty rate will jump for those of us that bring lots of marines, or lots of Storm Ravens with Hurricane Bolters. IMO bolter spam will be too powerful.

Nor does your calculation take morale into account, which will give you more points back. More still if you assault, too.

*Did you know a 10 man Tac Squad w/Plas, Combi-Plas, Grav Cannon will outshoot Sternguard against GEQ beyond the 12" band?


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 16:24:53


Post by: easypeasylemonsquezy


 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.


I like this idea, but probably should be "non-vehicle" only, bolters are meant to tear through flesh so on infantry and monsters? sure!

MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."


I'd just say no, GEQ had to use cover to basically have any chance of survival, and it would force that again, but getting in cover is way harder to pull off in 8th edition.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr Morden wrote:
If you want to reflect the fluff of bolters and Marines in particular (which is where the focus seems always to be focussed) you have to redesign the marines to be more like cinematic marines so they will cut swathes of enemy "mortals" down in a single burst - likely a single bolt.

But then the pts costs per marine need to rocket - and that not something GW wants even if it might be better for the game and certainly might in a less obsessive focus on Marine models over everything else.

The ideas above are interesting but also I don't think they will give people what they want and still will end up wanting to tweek it further to get what they want


Sooo true, Table to vs lore is pretty funny when it comes to marines...

The number of marines that are fielded and killed during a 1 day 40k Tournament are less than the total number of marines grown and killed in the period of 1000 years in the lore...


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 16:37:33


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah that's not gonna stop people using Infantry. Mathematically you still don't kill a lot. 10 in rapid fire range is almost 9 dead. Or 36 points earned back.

It isn't like Sternguard are doing that spectacularly when ignoring that armor, and they're only maybe 4 or 5 points more. Sternguard are slightly popular, and yet that's not stopping Infantry or Gaunts being ran. Hmm.


That's not very convincing. Sternguard are 1 unit type, boltguns are on many. Casualty rate will jump for those of us that bring lots of marines, or lots of Storm Ravens with Hurricane Bolters. IMO bolter spam will be too powerful.

Nor does your calculation take morale into account, which will give you more points back. More still if you assault, too.

*Did you know a 10 man Tac Squad w/Plas, Combi-Plas, Grav Cannon will outshoot Sternguard against GEQ beyond the 12" band?

That squad loadout is almost 200 points. I'm pretty sure I'm able to make a Sternguard squad better than that for the price.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 16:39:38


Post by: Melissia


 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.
I would. There's no reason why Sisters boltguns have to be worse than marine boltguns.

Fethin' marinewank.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 16:41:26


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Melissia wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.
I would. There's no reason why Sisters boltguns have to be worse than marine boltguns.

Fethin' marinewank.

They're bigger Bolters. That's a good reason.

Nobody is opposed to fixing Sister Bolters though.


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 16:57:20


Post by: fraser1191


On a troop level I'd say most are balanced with each other.
It's the elites that mess up the balance and the charts that let you forgo taking troops and B-line elites don't help that.
My friend thought that crisis suit were too expensive, then he realized he can slap 3 plasma guns on a guy and melt a unit.
We do both agree that they are a tad too expensive still though


Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  @ 2017/12/03 17:01:05


Post by: Melissia


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're bigger Bolters.
Not really, actually. Sisters wear power armor specifically so they can wield bigger weapons than ordinary humans. This is also why Sisters can walk around toting heavy bolters, where unaugmented humans have to wield them in teams.

Boltguns don't need to be made in to tiered weapons. Hell, even having Guard be able to have that bonus on a to-wound roll of 6 wouldn't be broken, since they have to pay for their bolters and can only have one per squad anyway. And, I should remind you, FRFSRF doesn't apply to boltguns anyway, nor can conscripts have any in their squad. For a d6 game like 40k, there's no reason to have a division between different types of boltguns. After all, it's not like GW differentiates between Scouts (who get S4, no power armor) and Marines (who get S4, having power armor) in close combat.