In the same vein as Eldar Shuriken weapons that get AP-3 on a 6 to wound, or Necron weapons that have 1 better AP than their equivalents, I think Bolter weapons need something extra to help make Marines get more "punch"

With the explosive rounds of the Bolter, I feel a rule that activated on a 6 to would (similar to Eldar) should give them some kind of bonus.
But unlike Eldar and Necrons, I think it should be damage, rather than AP that gets modified.

However, I don't think increasing the Damage Characteristic of the gun would be the right choice, but rather the number of wounds caused
So a Bolter that rolls a 6 to wound, would cause 2 wounds, thus 2 saves that each cause 1 Damage.
This should scale well against both Hordes and Multi-wound models, and doesn't flood the game with yet more D2 weapons.

Thoughts?

-

Interesting concept, I like the idea of 1+1 damage on a 6 rather than a flat 2D. Helps them thin hordes without completely without invalidating Vanguard vets guns niche of a flat 2D.

At first I was going to suggest D2, but then I remembered how problematic that can be for units like Terminators, that are currently not great. I want to HELP Marine units, not compound the problem.
6s to wound generating 2 separate wounds/saves scales better and helps with Hordes, which is a major issue for Marines.
It also better represents an exploding round doing more casualties

It's a small change, but could be noticeable en masse

-

So kinda like Tesla except worse, so Tesla still keeps itself unique. I like that.

My original suggestion was forcing rerolls of successful saves. This would be unique, gives Bolters more bite against horde, and surprisingly helps a little against more Elite dudes. It also makes the Lt. better for buffing rank and file.

Not everyone was a fan of this idea though.

So how are you going to compensate weapons that should be better than Boltguns? Or "screw you, you're not marines" like normal?

Because reroll saves is actually *really* strong.

Tesla is a good comparison, yes.
I wanted something that not only represented the Explosive Round (which is what I'll call this rule from now on), but also helped even basic Marines do more damage to a unit, not just models in a unit.

6s to wound cause 2 wound instead of 1 seems a decent and easy add-on

Bharring wrote:
Because reroll saves is actually *really* strong.

I'm not suggesting that, Slayer-Fan was and was commenting about my change

-

Bharring wrote:
So how are you going to compensate weapons that should be better than Boltguns? Or "screw you, you're not marines" like normal?

Because reroll saves is actually *really* strong.

It really isn't stronger (and actually weaker) than actually negating saves like the Shuriken proc or most gauss weapons. If anything it just gives them an edge against Daemons.

Also it would likely be a "screw you" because they're 13 point models. The low amount of shooting needs to be compensated by better quality, even though it would only be a proc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Tesla is a good comparison, yes.
I wanted something that not only represented the Explosive Round (which is what I'll call this rule from now on), but also helped even basic Marines do more damage to a unit, not just models in a unit.

6s to wound cause 2 wound instead of 1 seems a decent and easy add-on

-

A better way to word yours might be "To roll wounds of 6+ force a target to take two total saves against this weapon" or something. I'm not good at wordsmithing.

Rerolling saves on 6s is better than AP-1 for all targets better than a 6+. And it's the same on a 6+.

Rerolling saves on 6s is better than AP-3 in most cases, especially if an invuln is involved.

The problem with saying it's ok to screw over other units because it's a 13ppm unit, is that many of the units you're screwing over are in the same ballpark - DAs and Necron Warriors are both 12ppm units. Both of which rely on having a better gun than a Boltgun, and pay for it.

I don't honestly think this is enough of a buff for me to take it. Yes, it's nice, but it only procs on 6s, and they still get the armour save.

Is this buff nice for bolt guns on IG/SoB? Yeah, It'd make me wanna take it on IG sergeants more.

Does it make me want to take marines with bolt guns? Not really. Now, given there may be a bit of a bias here as I ain't a big fan of things that procs on 6.

Bharring wrote:
Rerolling saves on 6s is better than AP-1 for all targets better than a 6+. And it's the same on a 6+.

Rerolling saves on 6s is better than AP-3 in most cases, especially if an invuln is involved.

The problem with saying it's ok to screw over other units because it's a 13ppm unit, is that many of the units you're screwing over are in the same ballpark - DAs and Necron Warriors are both 12ppm units. Both of which rely on having a better gun than a Boltgun, and pay for it.

All of these models are awful.

 Galef wrote:
In the same vein as Eldar Shuriken weapons that get AP-3 on a 6 to wound, or Necron weapons that have 1 better AP than their equivalents, I think Bolter weapons need something extra to help make Marines get more "punch"

With the explosive rounds of the Bolter, I feel a rule that activated on a 6 to would (similar to Eldar) should give them some kind of bonus.
But unlike Eldar and Necrons, I think it should be damage, rather than AP that gets modified.

However, I don't think increasing the Damage Characteristic of the gun would be the right choice, but rather the number of wounds caused
So a Bolter that rolls a 6 to wound, would cause 2 wounds, thus 2 saves that each cause 1 Damage.
This should scale well against both Hordes and Multi-wound models, and doesn't flood the game with yet more D2 weapons.

Thoughts?

-

I like it, its simple, somewhat accurately represents the fluff and is similar to other rules (exploding 6's) that its not too hard to get the hang of.

Would this apply to Bolt Pistols, Storm Bolters, Heavy Bolters and other bolt weapons as well? Certainly a boon to many Imperial factions if so.

I think exploding 6's is the most fair buff.

 Kcalehc wrote:

I like it, its simple, somewhat accurately represents the fluff and is similar to other rules (exploding 6's) that its not too hard to get the hang of.

Would this apply to Bolt Pistols, Storm Bolters, Heavy Bolters and other bolt weapons as well? Certainly a boon to many Imperial factions if so.

Yes, all Bolter weapons. And at no additional cost. Just add the rule. And maybe we make it full on Tesla, but for the To-Wound instead of To-Hit
And I'd word it as such:

"Exploding Round: Each roll to wound of 6 with this weapon causes 2 additional wounds. This will mean 3 separate wounds need to be saved against, rather than 1"

As mentioned, you still get your regular save (or Ap-1 for HBs and Bolt Rifles) so this really just helps add more dice for the opponent to roll and lose models

-

I'll chime in, and say that exploding 6's make sense, and is both a bit weaker than rerolling saves (which is good, rerolling save is a bit too much, being better than ap-1 or anything other than Sv2+) and it's also pretty funny because you could take chaos chosen with combi-bolter and use VoTLW to make wannabe tesla immortals for chaos.

Rerolling saves vs 6s is too good.

2 independently-saved wounds caused by 6s is strictly better than rerolling saves. By a lot.

3 independenlty-saved wounds caused by 6s is absurd.

What? Explain.

"Exploding Round: Each roll to wound of 6 with this weapon causes 2 additional wounds. This will mean 3 separate wounds need to be saved against, rather than 1"

Save : Reroll Saves : 3 Wounds
7+ : 1 : 3
6+ : 35/36 : 90/36
5+ : 8/9 : 2
4+ : 3/4 : 1.5
3+ : 4/9 : 1
2+ : 11/36 : 1/2

In all cases, 3 independent wounds is strictly superior to reroll saves - and usually, by a lot.

So if rerolling saves is OP (and it is), how can 3x wounds be OK?

Bharring wrote:
Rerolling saves vs 6s is too good.

2 independently-saved wounds caused by 6s is strictly better than rerolling saves. By a lot.

3 independenlty-saved wounds caused by 6s is absurd.

What Martel said. Please explain.

Are you comparing this to the old Twin-Linked vs Twin weapons? I.e. 2 separate rolls being better than 1 reroll? Cuz that's the point

-

The math is above. It's not even close.

Then why isn't Tesla considered OP? Is it just because you then have to roll to wound?
If so, lets knock it back down to just 2 total wounds per each roll of 6 as I originally proposed

It adds about 1 more total wound per 5 Marines, if that. Are you saying that 5 Tac Marines doing 1 more wound than they currently might do is OP? Because that's absurd

Or lets do 6 Stormbolters in RF range (6 Terminators).
That's 24 shots, 16 hits, against T4, that's only 8 wounds normal.
Less than 2 of those wound rolls should be 6, meaning only 1, maybe 2 more saves taken.

If we bump it to 3 wounds per each 6, that same unit does only does 10-12 wounds total on average, compare to 8 as now. Wounds that still get saves, so you can't even say it's a 20% increase in damage.
If a big complaint about Marines is that they don't do more damage, this is fair fix.

-

Bharring wrote:
Rerolling saves on 6s is better than AP-1 for all targets better than a 6+. And it's the same on a 6+.

Rerolling saves on 6s is better than AP-3 in most cases, especially if an invuln is involved.

The problem with saying it's ok to screw over other units because it's a 13ppm unit, is that many of the units you're screwing over are in the same ballpark - DAs and Necron Warriors are both 12ppm units. Both of which rely on having a better gun than a Boltgun, and pay for it.

A consistent AP-1 is a lot better. Let us just assume 6 wounds for a moment against a 5+ unit (like Infantry), a straight AP-1 is 5 dudes dead. My proposal doesn't even let them reach an average of 5. Six wounds against MEQ kills 2.3 with Gauss. Once again the Bolter doesn't reach that average either. Basically the Bolter is still doing worse than a Gauss Flayer. Now you can argue it's better than the Ranger's Galvanic rifle, where you pay for the range and the fact Rangers are only 7 points.

TEQ would be trickier, where you land 1.5 wounds with Gauss compared to Bolters in this scenario only getting 1. Doesn't seem unreasonable does it?

Meanwhile you just straight up negate a save for most targets with Shurikens. Even the 6+ an MEQ would get vs that is still worse off than an MEQ rerolling his 3+ (which I think is equivalent of a 5+). A unit like Custodes getting a 2+/4++ is still doing worse with a 4++ than a rerolled 2+ (which is maybe a 3+ or slightly less).

I fail to see an issue.

2 wounds on 6s is 1 extra wound per 6 shots, or 1 extra wound per 3 Marines.

First, note that that's per shot, not per wound. So you're doubling your effectiveness vs T8. Or 50% increased effectiveness vs T5-7. Or 33% increased effectiveness vs T4. Only 25% increased effectiveness vs T3, though.

That's a big increase.

Rerolling the save and taking 2 saves are roughly equal, but taking 2 saves represents the damage of an exploding round better, because it could kill more than 1 model.
Marines sorely need more Horde control. Exploding 6s is the answer, even if it's just 2, not 3, wounds per 6

3 wounds might be excessive on a lucky (very lucky) roll, but 2 wounds is the bare minimum for this rule to work

Bharring wrote:
2 wounds on 6s is 1 extra wound per 6 shots, or 1 extra wound per 3 Marines

No it isn't. It's 1 extra wound per 6 WOUNDS. The Marines have to hit first. 3 Marines, with no hit-mods, only get 4 hits. Against T4, that will only be 2 Wounds.
You need 9 shots, which would be 6 hits, which is a perfect statiscial roll would be 1,2,3,4,5 & 6. Against T4, that would be 3 wounds + 1 bonus.

Since you need 5 Marines in RF range to get 9 shots (10, technically), I stand by my assertion that Exploding Rounds only gets 1 more wound per 5 Marines.

But I will concede that is should just be 2 total wounds instead of 3

-

Shuriken on 6s does ignore 4+s or worse, provided there's not an Invuln. It's nice, sure. But the units that bring it in bulk pay for it. Guardians are Guardsmen at twice the price. Dire Avengers are GEQ-survivable units with MEQ prices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Rerolling the save and taking 2 saves are roughly equal"
They're maybe close at a 2+. Anything else, nowhere close:

Save : Reroll Saves : 2 Wounds
7+ : 1 : 2
6+ : 35/36 : 60/36
5+ : 8/9 : 4/3
4+ : 3/4 : 1
3+ : 4/9 : 2/3
2+ : 11/36 : 1/3

That's not what I'd call close.

This buff barely helps. I don't get why people think it's good.

You need around 14 marines to kill an extra guardsmen with this buff, without rerolls.

With rerolls (Chapter master + Lieutenant), you still need about 9. That's insane, and just to kill an extra guardsman?

I meant an extra shot on a "6" like orks. That's not even close to forcing rerolled saves.

Or give boltguns AP -1 vs 5+ or worse base armor.

Martel732 wrote:
I meant an extra shot on a "6" like orks. That's not even close to forcing rerolled saves.

Or give boltguns AP -1 vs 5+ or worse base armor.

I say just give the bolter ap - 1,but marines ignore an ap. It cancels out and help with damage

I feel like that isn't doing much against the best units in the game though; the cheap ones.

Hmm
Is it fair to say marines are out numberd 2:1 most times?
RF 2 bolters(no ap) are probably out of the question?

Or even assault 3?

I'm not keen on gimmicks on 6s

Assault 3 would probably best.

Martel732 wrote:
Assault 3 would probably best.

So hurricane bolters go to 18 shots each
Storm bolters 6?

Oh crap. Forgot about those. GW is making my head hurt. They needed to stretch the stats. Make marines T5 with bolters S5. Make Custodes and DG T6. And so forth.

 Galef wrote:
In the same vein as Eldar Shuriken weapons that get AP-3 on a 6 to wound, or Necron weapons that have 1 better AP than their equivalents, I think Bolter weapons need something extra to help make Marines get more "punch"

With the explosive rounds of the Bolter, I feel a rule that activated on a 6 to would (similar to Eldar) should give them some kind of bonus.
But unlike Eldar and Necrons, I think it should be damage, rather than AP that gets modified.

However, I don't think increasing the Damage Characteristic of the gun would be the right choice, but rather the number of wounds caused
So a Bolter that rolls a 6 to wound, would cause 2 wounds, thus 2 saves that each cause 1 Damage.
This should scale well against both Hordes and Multi-wound models, and doesn't flood the game with yet more D2 weapons.

Thoughts?

-

I like this suggestion, but I worry that it might be too minor to make a big difference. I'm also obsessed with my pet preference of overhauling the marine statline entirely to make them more powerful and more expensive though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Getting extra wounds on 6s is a "feel good" mechanic that doesn't actually increase the damage output of most bolter platforms all that much. So I like it from the perspective that it will make "bad" units like tac marines more pleasing to use without breaking the game. On the other hand, I don't think this is going to have much of an impact on list building or on the performance of most bolt weapon platforms, so part of me would rather consider more radical changes to marines rather than this particular change.

I also haven't considered how the math on this works out for, say, centurions or heavy bolter long fangs rerolling to-wound rolls. So there may be niche cases where this change would go from "feels good but mechanically minor" to problematically powerful.

IMHO many SM players don't see the real issues about their armies. All I see is suggestions about better armor and better shooting.

Those improvements would make SM even more similar to AM which is a shame, they are already mostly played as a gunline. SM need to be more versatile. Better psychic powers, more effective stratagems and more punch in melee. I'd like improvements like: "give Assault Marines lots of attacks on the charge" rather than making bolters AP-1 or upgrade the power armour to a 2+ save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Assault 3 would probably best.

So hurricane bolters go to 18 shots each
Storm bolters 6?

For 10 and 2 points? On BS3+ models? Come on, those weapons are already undercosted.

You need to look at the platforms taking the weapons with the cost of the weapon.

Storm Bolters arent undercosted. They're probably one of the only decent Bolt weapons to be honest.

Keep in mind what this will do to Primaris rifles, and anything once the Deathwatch boyos get their hands on them.

I do like the "3 wounds on a 6" aspect for bolters, but there's a situation where it might prove little much - vehicles.

If a unit is buffed to reroll wounds (which is normal) vs a T8 beasty, you get 3 wounds per 6, then reroll everything else to get more 6's. Essentially, you can only get 3 wounds or 0 with each shot. It's like the old snap-shooting TL tesla glitch from 7th.

As such this may be an effect to limit to "vs Infantry".

I would also advocate that models in power armour may fire boltguns as if they were assault weapons if they advance - they're the most elite army in the galaxy, after all. heck, even just any non-heavy weapon can be fired if they advance, at -1 to hit. Give them flexibility!

other options would include increasing boltgun range by 6" if the model doesn't move, to represent the marine actually taking a moment to aim instead of relying on his amazing skills, which usually work.

I am going to be honest, I think a flat -1 AP would make bolters more like how they were in earlier editions. Great at shredding light infantry, but not going to do much to MEQs.

If anything Necron Gauss should get a bonus vs vehicles to make it closer to older editions as well.

But it makes perfect sense for Vehicles that a Bolter would do most of its damage due to the Exploding Round. Rerolls be damned.

I'm doubling down on this. I really feel this is a great mechanic that not only improves Marines shooting output, but is very flavorful to the fluff.
It's meant to be a minor bonus as Marines still need other "fixes" like points decreases.

It just doesn't make sense to me that Xenos standard weapons would have special abilities, but not Bolter weapons.
Causing 2-3 wounds per roll of 6 to Wound is unique, yet similar to existing special abilities. It really does represent an Exploding Round of Bolt weapons, and helps with Horde control.

It's also a change that will affect the most units across the game, which is why it should be a minor buff.
I'm still not sure if it should be 2 wounds or 3, but I certainly think exploding 6s to wound should be a thing for Bolter weapons.


EDIT: I too feel that Gauss weapon, Shuriken weapons and Bolt weapons got mixed up rules for 8E.
If I were to rewritten then from the start, this is how I would have done it:

Gauss weapons: Keep their stats as-is, down 1 AP value, but add +1 damage.
So Flayer (AP-0) & Blasters (AP-1) would be D2, Cannons (AP-2) D3+1 and Heavy Cannon (AP-3) D6+1
Shuriken weapons would be -1S, +1shot and AP-1. So Catapults would be S3, Assault 3, AP-1. Cannons would be S5, Assault 4, AP-1
Bolt Weapons would then be free to have AP-3 on 6s to Wound to represent the exploding round

But alas, that didn't happen

-

"You need around 14 marines to kill an extra guardsmen with this buff, without rerolls."

With 3 independent wounds on a 6? Not so sure:

3 Marines shoot Guardsmen...
Now: 3x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 6x8/27, or about 1.778
Buffed: 3x2x(2/3)(1/2)(2/3) + 3x2x(2/3)(1/6)x3x(2/3) = 6x4/18 + 12/9 = 2.667

So it didn't double the firepower vs Guardsmen, but it is a massive change.

As for vehicles? It doesn't make sense that the fragmentation effect of the rocket exploding is a lot more threatening to targets that need peneration, not shrapnel.

"It just doesn't make sense to me that Xenos standard weapons would have special abilities, but not Bolter weapons."
Pulse? No special rule.
Kroot Rifle? No special rule.
Gauss? No special rule.
Shoota? No special rule.
Gaunts? No special rule.
Shuriken? Special rule.
Poison? Special rule.

2 of 7 basic weapons for Xenos have special rules. That makes them the exception, not the rule. So if Marines need one because Eldar have one, what are you going to give to Tau? Necrons? Nids? You're not, because this is another "Someone has something Marines don't have: game is broken until that changes" thread.

(I like your proposed changes to Guass and Shuriken, though.)

Bharring wrote:
"You need around 14 marines to kill an extra guardsmen with this buff, without rerolls."

With 3 independent wounds on a 6? Not so sure:

3 Marines shoot Guardsmen...
Now: 3x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 6x8/27, or about 1.778
Buffed: 3x2x(2/3)(1/2)(2/3) + 3x2x(2/3)(1/6)x3x(2/3) = 6x4/18 + 12/9 = 2.667

So it didn't double the firepower vs Guardsmen, but it is a massive change.

As for vehicles? It doesn't make sense that the fragmentation effect of the rocket exploding is a lot more threatening to targets that need peneration, not shrapnel.

"It just doesn't make sense to me that Xenos standard weapons would have special abilities, but not Bolter weapons."
Pulse? No special rule.
Kroot Rifle? No special rule.
Gauss? No special rule.
Shoota? No special rule.
Gaunts? No special rule.
Shuriken? Special rule.
Poison? Special rule.

2 of 7 basic weapons for Xenos have special rules. That makes them the exception, not the rule. So if Marines need one because Eldar have one, what are you going to give to Tau? Necrons? Nids? You're not, because this is another "Someone has something Marines don't have: game is broken until that changes" thread.

(I like your proposed changes to Guass and Shuriken, though.)

Ah, I was going with what the original post read, so 2 independent wounds on a 6. Also wasn't taking into account rapid fire, so it'd be more like 7 marines in RF.

I was going off
So a Bolter that rolls a 6 to wound, would cause 2 wounds, thus 2 saves that each cause 1 Damage.

Just to point out, Orks now have Dakka-Dakka, so there is their shooting bonus.
And while Gauss has no special rule per se, all Gauss weapons have -1AP above other equivalents.
AP5/6 translated to AP0 in 8E
AP4 = AP-1
AP3 = AP-2 and so on
Gauss weapons across the board have an additional -1AP to that change. So that is their "rule"
The same happened for weapons that once had Lance or Rending in that they got an additional -1AP

The point of Exploding Rounds for Bolters is to add a fluff addition that never existed while at the same time, making the Bolter a bit more fearsome than a Lasgun, which currently it is just to similar to. And Lasguns have the numbers to still be better than Bolters, which is garbage.
Even if Marines get bumped down to 11ppm in CA, that still only adds 1 Marine per 5 (65pts for 5 now vs 66pts for 6)
That's only 1 more bolter. That's hardly going to make Marines do more damage in the shooting phase.

I'm fine with your assessment that 3 wounds per 6 to wound may be OP en masse, but 2 wounds per 6 is far from OP.
I've already provided the math that shows that to only add 1 more wound per 5 Marines, but here it is again:

5 Marines in RF = 10 shots = 6ish hits = 3 wounds against T4, or 4 wounds against T3, normally.
Assuming an even spread of rolls to wound (1,2,3,4,5 & 6) that's just 1 extra wound than normal. So 4 Wounds vs T4 or 5 vs T3
Again, actually, with completely even rolls, no matter what the T is onf the target, you still just get 1 more wound. That's it.

Oh, and side note on the explosion doing more damage vs vehicles: it won't be the shrapnel, but the heat that causes the extra damage, thereby weakening the metal for further hits to cause more damage.

-

This isn't just a "marines don't have it so I want it" thread - it's mainly concerned with getting a realistic improvement to bolters which isn't game breaking but represents the fact that a boltgun shell is supposed to explode.

Reference your list, whilst these weapons don't have special rules, per se, if they haven't changed then tau basic weapons are longer range and higher strength, it sounds like gauss has better AP, orks have dakkadakkadakka which affects pretty much every shoota they field. can't comment on the rest but a gaunts gun should be basic due to cheapness.

if you want to slow the game down, you could have hits generated by passed saves, so if it rips through a gaunt it does nothing, but if it impacts armour it will explode.

so S4, each passed save generates a S3 hit.

but, as said, this will slow the game down.

I think the best option for balance would be:

"each unmodified to wound roll of 6 inflicts 2 wounds, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC."

bolters are anti-infantry. getting 3 wounds per successful wound roll on a knight with a 3+ save is the same (statistically) as being AP-4, but with more variation available due to chance. On average, each successful wound roll will cause 1 unsaved wound.

 some bloke wrote:

"each unmodified to wound roll of 6 inflicts 2 wounds, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC."

That's not a bad change to my proposal, actually. But if we are going to exclude Vehicles and Titans, it needs to be 3 wounds not 2. Really lean hard into the anti-infantry role.

-

 Galef wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

"each unmodified to wound roll of 6 inflicts 2 wounds, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC."

That's not a bad change to my proposal, actually. But if we are going to exclude Vehicles and Titans, it needs to be 3 wounds not 2. Really lean hard into the anti-infantry role.

-

I like your original suggestion, however, what do you think about just re-rolling wounds for bolters in general? Is it strong? Yeah. Is it stupid strong? I don't think so. Also, arguably - math wise - this brings them quite close to the old AP5 in terms of damage output vs infantry. And in light of the fluff with mini rockets it kind of makes sense?

While not a fan, I'd point out that it inherently skews towards being more effective vs infantry than hard targets. It better reflects a fragmenting rocket-bolt.

 Galef wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

"each unmodified to wound roll of 6 inflicts 2 wounds, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC."

That's not a bad change to my proposal, actually. But if we are going to exclude Vehicles and Titans, it needs to be 3 wounds not 2. Really lean hard into the anti-infantry role.

-

I think that's fair, as there's not likely to be a huge amount of 6's rolled due to the limited quantities of marines.

2 hurricane bolters (24 shots, if I'm not mistaken?) would average 4 6's, so 8 extra wounds. That's a good amount, I'd say, for the anti-horde weaponry it's supposed to be.

edit - that's only if all hit, so 16 hits, result of 2-3 6's, so 4-6 extra wounds. not game breaking at all.

The next question is on applying it to heavier bolt weapons.

Heavy bolter? I'd say it works.
Vulcan Mega-Bolter? might even drop the non-vehicle rule for that one... it's supposed to be bigger bolts, after all.

edit edit: This does still have anti-elite repercussions though - wraithguard, terminators...

...I like it. give bolters some bite!

Just to clarify since there have been some revisions to my original proposal (thanx everyone), these are the 2 latest versions on my proposal:

"Exploding Round: Each roll to wound of 6 with this weapon causes 1 additional wound. This will mean 2 separate wounds need to be saved against, rather than 1"

OR

"Exploding Round: Each roll to wound of 6 with this weapon causes 2 additional wounds, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC. This will mean 3 separate wounds need to be saved against, rather than 1."

-

I'm good with the first iteration.

I don't agree that 3 on a 6 is balanced, I think 2 is where it should be.

I would take your second suggestion with this minor amendment.

"Exploding Round: Each roll to wound of 6 with this weapon causes an additional wound, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC. This will mean 2 separate wounds need to be saved against, rather than 1.

Gives the minor buff vs infantry, doesnt screw vehicles, and lets the other weapons do their own thing without raining on parades too much.

As for Up/Down Bolter Scaling, I honestly think it wouldnt be too much of an issue. Assault Cannons are closer to Stubber/Autoweapons anyway so dont need this really, and you could up it to 2 extras for a Heavy Bolter

Vulcans dont need to be touched, because hold crap they turn most things into Swiss Cheese already. Same with Warden Gatlin Cannons, Avengers and Castigators

 IHateNids wrote:

"Exploding Round: Each roll to wound of 6 with this weapon causes an additional wound, unless the target is a VEHICLE or TITANIC. This will mean 2 separate wounds need to be saved against, rather than 1...[snip].. and you could up it to 2 extras for a Heavy Bolter

I like that a lot. Makes regular bolters a big better against non-Vehicles with 2 per 6 and makes Heavy Bolters a worthwhile option to take if they do 3 per 6.

-

Just making Astartes (not other Imperial) bolters -1 save would be fine in my book...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Who remembers the old citadel journal article on different ways to fire bolters? My favourite was a 1 inch blaster template at strength 3 no save mod (instead of strength 4 -1 save) , to reflect them hosing an area with shrapnel from the exploding rounds! idea was you had more choices when firing the weapons...

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Just making Astartes (not other Imperial) bolters -1 save would be fine in my book...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Who remembers the old citadel journal article on different ways to fire bolters? My favourite was a 1 inch blaster template at strength 3 no save mod (instead of strength 4 -1 save) , to reflect them hosing an area with shrapnel from the exploding rounds! idea was you had more choices when firing the weapons...

wasn't that the way that old rubric marine fired their bolter, IIRC? They put a small blast template, but I think it was S4 AP5 or AP4, it was pretty good.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Assault 3 would probably best.

So hurricane bolters go to 18 shots each
Storm bolters 6?

"For 10 and 2 points? On BS3+ models? Come on, those weapons are already undercosted."

How about a mortal wound on a natural 1 for saves?

Similar mechanic to the death jesters which also represents explosive rounds...

How about we just give marines special issue ammunition like the deathwatch? People seem to think they work all right, plus it prevents the whole cascade issue into Guard and Sisters who also have bolters. Surely the imperium has enough special ammo for all 1 million marines?

though i'm sure some of you will object to making deathwatch less special, but i'm not so sure that's a bad thing per se. They already have veterans as troops and access to power swords on the regular guys. there's also the fact that their squads are super adaptive.

Just food for thought.

I suppose the problem Dandelion is it doesn’t seem necessary to add wargear in their background when in the background they’ve already got these amazing reflexes, training, discipline, stability, and dexterity but in this game system they still shoot just as well as the dilettante teenager who inherited a platoon command because all you have is a single roll to hit or miss.

*sing-song voice*

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
That’s really all they need to do!
No special rules - they’re the baseline troop,
All other ideas can go screw!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
It’s the simplest way to make do!
Fixes all the relative iss-sues
Without making a big pile of poo!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
The chassis is the rotten bit!
Price them more like a Guardsman,
Y’all can stop this spazzy gak!

Now Everybody!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper...

 greatbigtree wrote:
*sing-song voice*

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
That’s really all they need to do!
No special rules - they’re the baseline troop,
All other ideas can go screw!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
It’s the simplest way to make do!
Fixes all the relative iss-sues
Without making a big pile of poo!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
The chassis is the rotten bit!
Price them more like a Guardsman,
Y’all can stop this spazzy gak!

Now Everybody!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper...

Genius. Absolute genius.

Poetry aside, the issue is that you can’t price them like guardsmen without the Elite Few outnumbering the Legions Of Death or Hordes Of Orks



Their only issue by general consensus is killing power, via guns or stabbing things

Since you can’t give them all +1 attack without horribly screwing all marine-based armies, a minor buff to the bolter makes sense

I like the idea of exploding wounds, but would it be against a single model, or spread around?

Because the latter doesn't seem right.
Since when in the fluff could a bolter take out multiple enemies with a single shot? The explosion isn't that big. I know people like to compare bolters to automatic grenade launchers, but they really aren't like that.
2 wounds against a single model makes more sense as it would reflect the 2 stage process of the bolt penetrating and then detonating inside of the target.
It's not as if there isn't already an ability like that; I'm pretty sure tyranids have a ccw that causes extra wounds on a 6 against a single model.
The difference though is that marines would get it at range and on a basic weapon.
If the damage could be spread around, that would make bolters into psuedo mortal wounds generators. And that's not good.

 Galef wrote:
Then why isn't Tesla considered OP? Is it just because you then have to roll to wound?

-

Yes, that's exactly why.
With extra hits you have to roll to wound and then your opponent gets a save. That's 2 steps.
With extra wounds your opponent gets a save. That's one step, which is made harder because they would have to take multiple ones all of a sudden.
Wounds are inherently stronger because they bypass a step of damage mitigation.

Tesla are also 9 points a weapon. Which is ludicrous.

I actually like to see it have an effect on morale, because bolters are supposed to be demoralizing. I'm not sure how effective it would be though, as there are too many abilities in hoard armies that outright negate or mitigate morale damage.

You completely ignored the poem. Cheaper is better.

And makes marines more what they aren't supposed to be, a power armour horde.

We've gone over cheaper, it's a poop buff.

The ship has sailed on that. They are never going to be what they are supposed to be. Cost them for the effectiveness they actually show on the table.

There is no acceptable bolter improvement that makes them 13 ppm. Nor bolt rifle improvement that makes intercessors 18 ppm.

Martel732 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
*sing-song voice*

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
That’s really all they need to do!
No special rules - they’re the baseline troop,
All other ideas can go screw!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
It’s the simplest way to make do!
Fixes all the relative iss-sues
Without making a big pile of poo!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
The chassis is the rotten bit!
Price them more like a Guardsman,
Y’all can stop this spazzy gak!

Now Everybody!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper...

Genius. Absolute genius.

Agreed, very clever. But I only partially agree with the message. I'll quote myself from one of the other "fix Marines" threads:

 Galef wrote:
And with no actually changes to rules and/or stat, there is no "reasonable" cost for Marines. At 13ppm they are just overcosted. At 11ppm they are a bit better, but still not great. At 9ppm, they are probably worth their cost, but now you have a unit that is cheaper than other options that they are SUPPOSED to be better than.

The only "fix" that will make MEQs appropriate is a 1-2 punch of points decrease AND some kind of rule change/special ability.

Marines need to be cheaper, yes, but they do NOT need to be "cheap". They still need to have some weight in comparison to other "baseline" Troops, which BTW many of those DO have weapons with special traits.

IMO, 11ppm Marines with "Exploding Rounds" (the 2 wounds per 6 against non-Vehicles version) is the sweet spot. Cheap enough to field plenty of Marines, but not cheaper than other, weaker Troops, and have greater impact on the army's overall damage output.
This also helps make Terminators a bit better too, although they also need a point drop.

"Exploding Rounds" is a small change that, combined with minimal point decreases, should make Marines "feel" like Marines

-

Martel732 wrote:
The ship has sailed on that. They are never going to be what they are supposed to be. Cost them for the effectiveness they actually show on the table.

There is no acceptable bolter improvement that makes them 13 ppm. Nor bolt rifle improvement that makes intercessors 18 ppm.

If only we had room to expand marines that weren't limited by their bigger brothers.

Tell me, why weren't normal marines just given Primaris stat lines again? That's the best fix.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Tell me, why weren't normal marines just given Primaris stat lines again? That's the best fix.

Likely because GW chickened out, or someone had the idea to milk the product line for more sales.
I've posted before that I truly think GW was designing Marines in the early stages of 8E to have 2W/2A like Primaris, but something changed in that process that made them split into a separate line instead.
Sadly, GW could have had their cake AND eaten it too. All Basic Marines should have had the Primaris Statline, while all the new Primaris models they had planned could have just been a new Armour mark with better equipment. Maybe Primaris could have been T5? That increase in T and improved equipment would still result in plenty of sales, yet not been as much of a huge dump on older Marines.

Imagine how 8E would be if basic Marines (both Loyalist and Chaos) has 2W/2A base, and everything scaled up from there?

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
*sing-song voice*

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
That’s really all they need to do!
No special rules - they’re the baseline troop,
All other ideas can go screw!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
It’s the simplest way to make do!
Fixes all the relative iss-sues
Without making a big pile of poo!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
The chassis is the rotten bit!
Price them more like a Guardsman,
Y’all can stop this spazzy gak!

Now Everybody!

Marines just need to be chee-eeper...

Genius. Absolute genius.

Agreed, very clever. But I only partially agree with the message. I'll quote myself from one of the other "fix Marines" threads:

 Galef wrote:
And with no actually changes to rules and/or stat, there is no "reasonable" cost for Marines. At 13ppm they are just overcosted. At 11ppm they are a bit better, but still not great. At 9ppm, they are probably worth their cost, but now you have a unit that is cheaper than other options that they are SUPPOSED to be better than.

The only "fix" that will make MEQs appropriate is a 1-2 punch of points decrease AND some kind of rule change/special ability.

Marines need to be cheaper, yes, but they do NOT need to be "cheap". They still need to have some weight in comparison to other "baseline" Troops, which BTW many of those DO have weapons with special traits.

IMO, 11ppm Marines with "Exploding Rounds" (the 2 wounds per 6 against non-Vehicles version) is the sweet spot. Cheap enough to field plenty of Marines, but not cheaper than other, weaker Troops, and have greater impact on the army's overall damage output.
This also helps make Terminators a bit better too, although they also need a point drop.

"Exploding Rounds" is a small change that, combined with minimal point decreases, should make Marines "feel" like Marines

-

Would you build off of this and have 10 point marines and a 1 point boltgun?

Maybe, although GWs points system is surprising consistent in that anything that is ALWAYS base wargear gets a 0pt cost. Since nothing in any Marine codex (that I'm aware of) has the OPTION to take a Bolt gun above their standard wargear, it would break this consistency.

It's the same reason why a Pulse Laser cost 0pts in the Eldar Codex, despite being very similar to a Twin-Lascannon. The only units that can take a PL are the Falcon and Crimson Hunters, so the cost of the PL is rolled into their cost instead.

Likewise Dire Avengers and Necron Immortals have weird costs that don't include their gun, because their guns can be taken as options for other units in their Codices above those other units' base wargear. Namely Autarchs/Exarchs and various Necron vehicles. Otherwise those guns would also have a 0ppm cost

So while it would make sense to have 10ppm Marines with 1ppm Bolt guns, I don't see it happening.
Although, I don't see my "Exploding Rounds" suggestion happening either, and the best we can hope for is 10-11ppm Marines via CA.
Which is sad because it will mean Marine still won't "feel" like Marines, even if they are closer to being worth their cost

-

VoidSempai wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Just making Astartes (not other Imperial) bolters -1 save would be fine in my book...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Who remembers the old citadel journal article on different ways to fire bolters? My favourite was a 1 inch blaster template at strength 3 no save mod (instead of strength 4 -1 save) , to reflect them hosing an area with shrapnel from the exploding rounds! idea was you had more choices when firing the weapons...

wasn't that the way that old rubric marine fired their bolter, IIRC? They put a small blast template, but I think it was S4 AP5 or AP4, it was pretty good.

Alt fire mode!

range 24 Rapid 1, Str 4, dmg 1, save -1
OR
range 24 Assault 2, Str 3, dmg 1, save -

The thing about Bolter-buffs is that it doesn’t fix board control issues or durability issues.

8th edition is a kill them before they kill you edition. The only real protection against that is more bodies.

Lower points fixes...

Relative damage output: MEQ at 11 points per model allows for more damage output per point. Not just bolters, but access to MORE units, that allows more access to special, Heavy, and close combat upgrades.

Relative durability: More bodies, at lower points per model directly increases the ability to soak damage efficiently. Note also, this applies to keeping upgrades alive. As a long-time Guard player, I can tell you having extra bodies to keep the upgrades alive is key to their victory. If you have Death Company with a pair of CC upgrades, the rest of the squad is really just there to soak wounds. If you can afford two more dudes, you go from being wiped out to making it to combat with the two dudes that matter.

Board control: More bodies mean you can spread out to deny deep strike, block charges, and resist efforts to prevent you from doing so. Having more bodies comes into play with securing objectives.

The mechanics of 8th is edition reward board control. The little tactical depth that the game posesses lies in that. Having access to “disposable” troops allows you options for game changing plays that don’t involve simply killing everything you see.

Which is why I also want 11ppm Marines AND something extra. I don't even play Marines (outside of games at home with my kids), but they are my favorite opponent.
I get that every army should have something "expendable" in war, but with the investment given into making Marines, it just feels wrong to make them "cheap" for that purpose.

They certainly need to be cheaper, and I think most of us agree 11ppm is a pretty good spot for them, I just like to see something added that make a single unit of Marines a bit more fearsome than other Faction's basic Troop (excluding the super-Elite Factions like Custodes, of course).

Explosive Rounds could be that thing. As could 2W/2A, or 2+ Armour. This list could, and indeed is, going on. So many opportunities to make Marine feel like Marines compared to other armies.

-

I've found the biggest issue marines have is durability, not offensive output. I started in 5th and back then T4 and a 3+ meant something. It wasn't invincible but it was durable. Now it's a joke and the main reason most very competitive lists have a few big stompy/smash units and then a ton of cheap chaff to screen, hold objectives and give CP. Your paying points for things that you should such as strength, BS, WS but it doesn't matter when you die as easily as a guardsmen.

In an edition that finally moved away from 3 to 4 wounds being the max a model will have, marines have to few and power armor needs to be improved some how.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've found the biggest issue marines have is durability, not offensive output. I started in 5th and back then T4 and a 3+ meant something. It wasn't invincible but it was durable. Now it's a joke and the main reason most very competitive lists have a few big stompy/smash units and then a ton of cheap chaff to screen, hold objectives and give CP. Your paying points for things that you should such as strength, BS, WS but it doesn't matter when you die as easily as a guardsmen.

In an edition that finally moved away from 3 to 4 wounds being the max a model will have, marines have to few and power armor needs to be improved some how.

I certainly agree, which is why months ago I suggested +1W across the board for ALL Marines, whether Infantry, Bikes, Terminators, whatever. No points adjustment needed for most units (Death Guard and T-sons might need a bump in points, however).
But aside from meaning you'd have more Marines alive in later turns, that doesn't add to their damage output, which is important in 8E.

Maybe we'll get 2W Marines (3W Termies) in 9E?

-

A single unit of Marines is more fearsome than a single unit (at least) of:
-Guardsmen
-Hormagaunts
-Termigaunts
-Guardians (both)
-Rangers
-Dire Avengers
-Fire Warriors
-Kroot

They are about even - goes both ways - when facing
-Ork Boyz in large mobs - so depends on kit of each squad
-Necron Warriors - come in 20man squads, and should be about as scary man-for-man
-Necron Immortals - which should be scarrier

And are scared by
-Custode troops?

A single unit of Marines is *already* more fearesome than almost all basic troops in the game. The problem is that they aren't more fearsome per point.

 Galef wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I've found the biggest issue marines have is durability, not offensive output. I started in 5th and back then T4 and a 3+ meant something. It wasn't invincible but it was durable. Now it's a joke and the main reason most very competitive lists have a few big stompy/smash units and then a ton of cheap chaff to screen, hold objectives and give CP. Your paying points for things that you should such as strength, BS, WS but it doesn't matter when you die as easily as a guardsmen.

In an edition that finally moved away from 3 to 4 wounds being the max a model will have, marines have to few and power armor needs to be improved some how.

I certainly agree, which is why months ago I suggested +1W across the board for ALL Marines, whether Infantry, Bikes, Terminators, whatever. No points adjustment needed for most units (Death Guard and T-sons might need a bump in points, however).
But aside from meaning you'd have more Marines alive in later turns, that doesn't add to their damage output, which is important in 8E.

Maybe we'll get 2W Marines (3W Termies) in 9E?

-

I got their damage output.

-1 AP boltguns. 2 Attacks.



On a serious note, yeah, Marine's are basically screwed in 8th. The best we'll get is a point drops realistically, and if we're optimistic a special rule like yours.

Having played Eldar vs Marines many, many times and playing small games that consisted of most just Tac Marines, Guardians and/or Dire Avengers, I can say from experience that a Single unit of Marines is certainly NOT more fearsome than a single unit of Guardians or DAs.
5 Marines drop far faster to 10 Guardian catapults or 5 DA catapults (that can stay outside RF range), than those same Guardians or DAs fall to 5 Bolters.

But the main thesis of this thread is that 5 Bolters do less damage that 10 Lasguns, which is pathetic.

DA catapaults only stay outside RF range if you Fire & Fade. Otherwise, the SM close to within RF range before firing every turn.

5 Marines shooting DAs:
5x2x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) = 10x(2/9), or 20/9 wounds/round

5 DAs shooting Marines:
5x2x(2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] = 20/12 wounds/round
So it's fairly even.

5 Marines shooting Guardians:
5x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = 80/27

10 Guardians shooting Marines:
2x[DA shooting] = 40/12

So 5 naked Marines outshoot 5 naked Dire Avengers.
10 Guardians slightly outshoot 5 Marines by about 10% - but are in 6" charge range after one round of shooting, and do even worse there.

Supported (CP, psykers, other units), DAs/Guardians certainly do outperform Marines. But Dire Avengers die faster to Boltguns than Marines die to Shuriken. Guardians do die 10% slower than twice as fast to Marines, but only get one round of shooting. That unit of Marines is more fearsome to either than they are to the Marines.

Gotta be honest, I have no idea what that math translates to.
I get what the numbers represent (5 shots x 2 for RF, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, etc), but I have no idea what "80/27" means at the end

When I "math out" stats in my head, I do it in increments of 6, 9 or 12 if possible and round down.
So I know 5 Marines with 10 Shots hitting on 3+ is 6-7 hits, rounding down to account for "bad luck" means you should only rely on about 6 hits, which then leads to 4 wounds on T3 models. Or 2 dead Dire Avengers

I prefer this method rather than doing 5x2x2/3x2/3, etc
So with no snark implied, can you help me understand what "80/27" translates to? Or is it just a method of comparison?

-

 Galef wrote:
Maybe, although GWs points system is surprising consistent in that anything that is ALWAYS base wargear gets a 0pt cost. Since nothing in any Marine codex (that I'm aware of) has the OPTION to take a Bolt gun above their standard wargear, it would break this consistency.

It's the same reason why a Pulse Laser cost 0pts in the Eldar Codex, despite being very similar to a Twin-Lascannon. The only units that can take a PL are the Falcon and Crimson Hunters, so the cost of the PL is rolled into their cost instead.

Likewise Dire Avengers and Necron Immortals have weird costs that don't include their gun, because their guns can be taken as options for other units in their Codices above those other units' base wargear. Namely Autarchs/Exarchs and various Necron vehicles. Otherwise those guns would also have a 0ppm cost

So while it would make sense to have 10ppm Marines with 1ppm Bolt guns, I don't see it happening.
Although, I don't see my "Exploding Rounds" suggestion happening either, and the best we can hope for is 10-11ppm Marines via CA.
Which is sad because it will mean Marine still won't "feel" like Marines, even if they are closer to being worth their cost

-

Marines in 2nd ed were getting tabled without taking a turn. GW has never matched marines to fluff, or even gotten close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
A single unit of Marines is more fearsome than a single unit (at least) of:
-Guardsmen
-Hormagaunts
-Termigaunts
-Guardians (both)
-Rangers
-Dire Avengers
-Fire Warriors
-Kroot

They are about even - goes both ways - when facing
-Ork Boyz in large mobs - so depends on kit of each squad
-Necron Warriors - come in 20man squads, and should be about as scary man-for-man
-Necron Immortals - which should be scarrier

And are scared by
-Custode troops?

A single unit of Marines is *already* more fearesome than almost all basic troops in the game. The problem is that they aren't more fearsome per point.

Or even equal in most cases. Equal would fine and desirable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines and eldar identical problems. Comparing them to each other is not informative. Compare how many points a wyvern volley removes of marines/eldar and then cheap troops like rangers or guardsmen.

Galef,
"80/27" means that it does 80 27ths of a wound. So 2.96... wounds. Reducing to a decimal gets complaints about rounding to the "wrong" way.

The problem with using whole numbers and gut feeling roundings is that they introduce a lot of uncertanty and bias. You could still do the whole thing as numbers though:

Marines would be (2/3)(2/3)(1/2), (5 models, two attacks each, hit rate, wound rate, failed save rate), which could also be expresssed as 2x2x1 (4) wounds for every 3x3x2 shot

DAs get a bit harder to do: (2/3)[(1/3)(1/3) + (1/6)(5/6)] becomes 2x[inner stuff] for every 3 shots. I'm going to skip the math that shows a Shuriken shot has a (1/4) chance to wound, so that gives us 2x1 (2) wounds for every 3x4 shots.

3x4 (12) shots and 3x3x2 (18) shots can both be factored to 3x3x4 shots (36). Multiply the DAs by 3 and the Marines by 2.

Thus, per how you want to look at it, for every 36 shots, Marines kill 8 Dire Avengers, and Dire Avengers kill 6 Marines.

Per round, they each get the same number of shots. So Dire Avengers lose a head-to-head by 6:8.

The fractionals are much easier to grok and wield, though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:
Case in point with your rounding: you rounded 2.96 to 2.

Thanx, that makes a lot more sense. Admittedly, I intentionally round down, even if the rounding should go up. This is an old habit I've developed for making quick in-game decisions.
If a unit can't do something with poor roles, I'm more hesitant to commit then to that action.

Seems to work out really well for me, but does give me a biased outlook on a unit's performance. But that outlook does also match my experience, so I roll with it.

At the end of the day, I'd be happy with 11ppm Marines as-is. But it is just a shame that a simple special rule for Bolters could easily be added that not only makes then feel more fluffy, but also adds to a Marines potential output. Yet just will not be added.

-

The first suggestion is pretty cool. On a 6 to wound you deal 2 separate wounds.

That’s called truncating. You do it at the end of all the multiplying, not the middle, and that way of doing number is even less convincing that either wounds on sixes or trimming to 11 would have any effect. That gives you what, forty, sixty, or eighty extra points? I guess it buys you another minimum tactical squad, which isn’t nothing.

Those numbers were without doublekills or triplekills on 6s. There were as it is now.

With the two-wounds-on-6 rule proposed above, it's 10 dead DAs for every 6 dead Marines. With three-wounds-on-6, it's *12* to 6 - that is, Marines kill *twice* as many Dire Avengers as Dire Avengers kill Marines. Naked.

Bharring wrote:
With the two-wounds-on-6 rule proposed above, it's 10 dead DAs for every 6 dead Marines...... Naked.

Which at their current price point, would be perfectly fair and fluffy, IMO, especially considering Eldar are supposed to be squishing and avoid being in RF range of big scary gorillas with shotguns (which is basically what Marines are to the Aeldari).
The idea is that if Marines can get that close, it's all over for the Eldar, but if the Eldar can coordinate their forces to pick off enough Marines before they get close, DAs and Gaurdians can swoop in a finish off the remainders.
In a 1-1 fight, Marines should win 90% of the time, but instead Marines and DAs are about even.

-

The extra hit on a 6... or whatever, is on average identical to a +1 to hit.

If you consider that for every 4/6 hits a Marine would generate, you now create 5 hits... 1 each for 3,4,5, and 2 for a 6 means 5 hits instead of 4.

Marines just need to be chee-eeper,
Bolters don't need to be that great!
I don't get the obsession with Bolt-ter porn
It's not how I'd want to master...

-WAIT!

What?

-You can't say that here! This is a family show!

Bah, you and your rules. Ahem...

Marines just need to be chee-eeper
You may need to buy more dudes!
If you add bolter rules the costs go up,
You can't kill all the little 'Nid broods.

How would points go up? You just don’t increase their points.

The problem with changing a weapon system that is prolific as the bolter type or even just the boltgun is the inherent fact it is prolific among many armies/factions. It doesn't just affect Space Marines or Chapters from their codex, it affects other chapters and factions eg: Deathwatch and all other released Marine codexes, Grey knights, Imperial guard, Chaos, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle and a lot more armies.

That's a massive change, to fix Space marines.

I think there's 2 things going on, and people are focusing on different aspects:
1. Basic marines aren't good units for their cost
2. Basic marines don't feel elite for many people

So, the simple and immediate solution is to drop their point cost to 11-12 pts and see how that works. With no other changes they're less "superhuman mini-tanks" and more just basic medium/heavy infantry. This is most likely to be the only change we'll see this edition, and we should probably be prepared to live with it.

Now, the question of how to make marines more elite is trickier because everyone imagines marines differently. For example, I personally think all marines should all just use primaris stats as a base, but that's just my opinion. There are quite a few people who disagree for various reasons, but it is what it is. Needless to say, I don't think any such changes will happen this edition at least.

As an aside I also think special issue ammunition for all marines could go along way to represent the generalist and tactical nature of the marines (i.e. being able to adapt), while improving the "elite" feel. Maybe Chaos gets super warp rounds and grey knights get more psy-type bolts. It also leaves non-marine bolters unaffected.

I think a change to bolter type weapons etc would result in a term coined, the 'Butterfly Effect'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

As an aside I also think special issue ammunition for all marines could go along way to represent the generalist and tactical nature of the marines (i.e. being able to adapt), while improving the "elite" feel.

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
The problem with changing a weapon system that is prolific as the bolter type or even just the boltgun is the inherent fact it is prolific among many armies/factions. It doesn't just affect Space Marines or Chapters from their codex, it affects other chapters and factions eg: Deathwatch and all other released Marine codexes, Grey knights, Imperial guard, Chaos, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle and a lot more armies.

That's a massive change, to fix Space marines.

And that's why i usually propose to change the way that marines use bolters, and not the bolters. The bolters in the hands of a guard sergeant or a sister are fine as it is.

I propose the following:

Fire Pattern:"A unit composed of at least 3 ADEPTUS ASTARTES models rerolls all failed hit rolls in the shooting phase with bolters, bolt pistols, storm bolters. If the unit contains at last 6 of those models, they can also reroll wound rolls of 1 with those weapons"

Then you increase the cost of bolters to 3 points, bolt pistol to 1 and stormbolters to 6, while reducing the cost of tactical marines by 4 and terminators and bikes by 6.

What does this solve:

1) A bolter in the hands of a marine becomes a scary weapon, but nothing truly exagerate (+33% output, like having an AP-1 against a 4+ save).
2) The cost of marines doesn't change, but the cost of special weapons gets indirectly reduced. This is correct, since the "bonus" that you get from a special weapons is lessened by the fact that you had to give up a weapon which is already decent. A plasma tac ends up being 23 instead of 26 for example.
3) You reduce the reliance of marines on auras, which is absolutely necessary. A tac squad becomes capable of acting as an isolated element, likewise a tactical terminator squad. Auras keep being useful to buff special weapons.
4) Hurricane bolters and heavy bolters are not included, they are special weapons and should be treated like that.
5) The 3 model base allows bikes to benefit from this, while the 6 model bonus give an incentive to bring larger squads.

In general, this fixes the overreliance of marines on specialized squads and buff auras, indirectly increasing the durability of the marine army, since you are decreasing the more glassy parts of it.
If the theme of the faction is "Rerolls", then i find it correct that the basic troops with the basic weapons do get it.

An identical change should be made for primaris obviously.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

My main army is DW, if you give SIA to every Normal Marine it kinda defeats the purpose of DW (even if vet stats) and Normal Marines (because would have to cost more, and is not what they need). DW are super customisable etc (that is why they are my main, cause they offer customisation). DW are fun to play and can be good but suffer from the same drawbacks as Normal marines, they pay a lot for a 3+ armour and a 3+ sv isn't that great in this edition. However, with DW this can be mitigated with a storm shield etc but then, more points and doesn't address massed fire. Then you have to throw in a termie in a DW squad to absorb no AP fire, but termies are expensive, limited etc.

I think this edition all we will see is a reduction in points for most Space marine units across all armies, no special rules to bolters or anything etc, is just to much it affects. Maybe in a future addition, they will rework the bolter, but it is just such a mainstream weapon would be more effort than worth to change atm.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

My main army is DW, if you give SIA to every Normal Marine (and don't increase cost) it kinda defeats the purpose of DW (even if vet stats) and Normal Marines (because cost more).

Why do you assume points would stay the same? The cost of units should always reflect their ability, so DW would be paying the same amount as normal marines, not more.

Besides I think you did somewhat agree with my point that SIA is not the only selling point for DW. The structure of the DW is unique at the very least.

I must of edited it after you quoted me. Anyway my points above. I didn't say I was disagreeing with you anywhere, just expanding.

EDIT: If they do add another SIA to Space Marines (I think you eluded to this Dandelion) say it is called: Emperor's Benediction Rounds (has some special rule) and can be equipped by all space marine faction armies (to boltguns or bolter type weapons. I think boltguns, bolter type weapons is to many things, but depends on rule). That could get around influencing non space marine armies and would be cool.

However, as I said above
I think this edition all we will see is a reduction in points for most Space marine units across all armies, no special rules to bolters or anything etc, is just to much it affects. Maybe in a future addition, they will rework the bolter, but it is just such a mainstream weapon would be more effort than worth to change atm.

"Which at their current price point, would be perfectly fair and fluffy, IMO, especially considering Eldar are supposed to be squishing and avoid being in RF range of big scary gorillas with shotguns (which is basically what Marines are to the Aeldari).
The idea is that if Marines can get that close, it's all over for the Eldar, but if the Eldar can coordinate their forces to pick off enough Marines before they get close, DAs and Gaurdians can swoop in a finish off the remainders.
In a 1-1 fight, Marines should win 90% of the time, but instead Marines and DAs are about even."

I think you're missing the scenario. It'd be Marine shooting killing twice as many Dire Avengers as *Dire Avengers* kill Marines. Marines already kill twice as many Dire Avengers as Marines as-is (although it'd be the same ratio at present).

"especially considering Eldar are supposed to be squishing and avoid being in RF range of big scary gorillas with shotguns" Which they already are. Marines kill over half their number of DAs in a single round of shooting. That's fair. What you're missing is that Eldar are shooting those big scary armored gorillas with their super advanced armored gorilla shooting guns. With the change, Marines nearly wipe equal numbers (or points) of DAs in a single round of shooting, while DAs kill less than half their numbers of Marines.

"The idea is that if Marines can get that close, it's all over for the Eldar, but if the Eldar can coordinate their forces to pick off enough Marines before they get close, DAs and Gaurdians can swoop in a finish off the remainders."
Is that why Eldar range is so much longer than IoM? Whereas IoM Lascannons are only 48", CWE's equivelent is a whopping 36"? Whereas IoM troop weapons are only 24", CWE is a whopping 12" or 18"?
CWE doesn't pick you off at range then dice you up close. Most of their weaponry is close range. Outside of Reapers, IoM destroy Eldar at long range. It's Eldar that need to get up close to kill Marines, not Marines that need to get up close to kill Eldar.

"In a 1-1 fight, Marines should win 90% of the time, but instead Marines and DAs are about even."
This is why I have such a problem with this thread. DAs are only 1ppm cheaper than Marines. DAs are kitted similar to Tac-Plas squads, but without Overcharge, so are kitted for killing Marines. It's their ideal troop to fight. Yet they lose both on points and per model. Why *should* Marines win 90% of the time vs an equally-elite unit that specializes in fighting elite troops?

I think you don't quite get how most of CWE functions. We've had some OP units and combos, but most units in our books for many editions have not worked that way.

My biggest issue with just dropping the points on Marines is that is doesn't actually translate to anything significant.
While Marines definitely need to be cheaper, say 11ppm, what does that buy anyone? Most lists are still just gonna take as few Marines as is required.

Let's assume most lists have about 20 Marines in their list. Going from 13ppm to 11ppm saves only 40pts. 40pts!?!?
That buys NOTHING of worth. You can't even get another unit of Marines with just 40pts, so hardly anyone will.

That, dear friends, is why Marines need something extra along with the points decrease.
Explosive Rounds causing 2 wounds per 6 to wound against non-Vehicles could be that something extra. 3 wounds per 6 for Heavy Bolters
It is a simple change that puts Bolter Weapons on par with Shuriken, Splinter and Gauss weapons and most importantly, makes them noticeably better than Lasguns

And I am well aware of just how far reaching this change could be. That's the point. It will affect several factions, none of which spam Bolter weapons (by choice as a valid tactic) currently and many of them have issues with Hordes.

-

CA is clearly going with cheaper based off the leaks.

If you think about it, marines with the current rules are the models they have the data for.

18 pt DC and 14 pt ASM stack up much better vs 5 pt guardsmen and 7 pt boyz. 2 pts on one end and 1 pt on the other matters.

Martel732 wrote:
CA is clearly going with cheaper based off the leaks.

If you think about it, marines with the current rules are the models they have the data for.

18 pt DC and 14 pt ASM stack up much better vs 5 pt guardsmen and 7 pt boyz. 2 pts on one end and 1 pt on the other matters.

Cheaper Marines and more expensive Horde models would certainly make a difference, yes. 11ppm Marines may not make a big difference in how many more Marines you can take, but 1-2pt increases on Guardsmen, Ork Boys, Kabalites, etc will make a difference in how many less models those armies can take.
Fingers crossed.

I'm trying not to get my expectations too high for CA, but I am really hoping for significant changes to several factions. Mostly cheaper Windriders

-

GW gave that model a nice timeout. Still not sure I'm ready to see them, or WK again. Even with fair rules.

To be clear, I also support 5 pt Guardsmen relative to 11 point Marines.

5x 13 pts = 65
6x 11 pts = 66

For 1 more point, you get 20% more firepower, staying power, board control. A 2 point reduction per model translates to, essentially, a holistic 20% buff to the unit.

Or more accurately, allowing a player to take about 10% to 15% more infantry for the same cost... depending on MSU-Style max upgrades or not. That is a big, holistic buff to Marines.

I'd expect elite versions of Marines to have their chassis dropped by a similar points value. Assault units, Devs, Anything in PA should see a points drop, and likely more points / chassis for elite units. Maybe 3 or even 4 points for certain unit models.

Call it the dissy cannon discount.

Marines need the weight of fire that almost every other faction in the game can bring. Otherwise they will lose every time vs cheaper, better infantry

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

As a Deathwatch player, that's already their gimmick. I also believe that the Angel codices need to be consolidated into the main Marine codex as neither are THAT unique that they need their own codex. I would also consolidate the Renegade Chapter marines into the Loyalist codex as well. They could've been easily handled but the way GW did it was lame.

Nature's Minister wrote:
Marines need the weight of fire that almost every other faction in the game can bring. Otherwise they will lose every time vs cheaper, better infantry

With the most recetn rumors putting Marines 5-10% cheaper and "cheaper, better infantry" getting increased in points, we may see enough of a tip of the scales so that Marines feel like they have more weight of fire.
Being outnumbered 2:1 will feel vastly different than being outnumbered 3:1

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

As a Deathwatch player, that's already their gimmick. I also believe that the Angel codices need to be consolidated into the main Marine codex as neither are THAT unique that they need their own codex. I would also consolidate the Renegade Chapter marines into the Loyalist codex as well. They could've been easily handled but the way GW did it was lame.

Considering what happened to Black Templars when they got folded, please don't fold anyone else. Just don't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

As a Deathwatch player, that's already their gimmick. I also believe that the Angel codices need to be consolidated into the main Marine codex as neither are THAT unique that they need their own codex. I would also consolidate the Renegade Chapter marines into the Loyalist codex as well. They could've been easily handled but the way GW did it was lame.

Considering what happened to Black Templars when they got folded, please don't fold anyone else. Just don't.

They still have most of their tools (Sword Brethren are just Vanguard, seriously) and gained even more tools.

The issue is how bad Marine melee is.

To be fair BT did get shafted in the tactics section but what did they lose being clumped in VS what did they gain?

There are lots of threads with Black Templars players outlining exactly that. I’d say vows foremost for them, and relics. As for what they gained they hardly care about devastators scouts or sternguard.

If they’re going to drop a codex at all they’d might as well drop the vanilla one. They could put a few pages on ultramarines at the back of the Dark Angels or Black Templars book.

My personal opinion on the matter is that there should be 5+ Marine Codices in the first place. 2-3 would have sufficed:
1 "Master" Codex that details all shared units + some generic traits for all the "vanilla" Chapters
1 Supplement Codex that adds to that with all the Blood Angel and Dark Angel special units and traits

Space Wolves might have enough unigue stuff to get their own codex, but it's entire possible to have rolled them into that same Supplemental Codex, which should be about as "thick" as the master Codex
Deathwatch and Grey Knights can then have a shared Codex lead by Inquisitors.

The indexes came really close to finally achieving this, but alas, GW wants you to buy as many books as possible

-

The 'unique' codex should add something for all chapters, and they know they can.

Iron Hands have Iron Fathers ect.

pelicaniforce wrote:
There are lots of threads with Black Templars players outlining exactly that. I’d say vows foremost for them, and relics. As for what they gained they hardly care about devastators scouts or sternguard.

If they’re going to drop a codex at all they’d might as well drop the vanilla one. They could put a few pages on ultramarines at the back of the Dark Angels or Black Templars book.

Every Chapter lost Relics this edition. That's nothing specific to them.

Also why wouldn't a melee army care about fire support from Devastators or Sternguard (where they could at least leverage their two attacks)? Even Daemons have units that can shoot for fire support like Soul Grinders and Skullcannons and such.

At most the Chapters only need like 2-3 unique units each, and maybe 3 total special relics. Consolidate almost all of the equipment (there's literally no reason why Dark Angels don't have Centurions, which is like a unit they should enjoy), and you can focus on better internal and therefore external balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

Bobby G is just a big issue all-around.

And I don't think anyone has said Marines have good melee, outside maybe BA and SW, so I don't know why you think people are against Marines getting better melee.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

Literally nobody would complain about that, and you already know the codex shouldn't be balanced around Roboute like it already was. That's just bad reasoning to try and give them a separate codex they don't need.

 Galef wrote:
My personal opinion on the matter is that there should be 5+ Marine Codices in the first place. 2-3 would have sufficed:
1 "Master" Codex that details all shared units + some generic traits for all the "vanilla" Chapters
1 Supplement Codex that adds to that with all the Blood Angel and Dark Angel special units and traits

Space Wolves might have enough unigue stuff to get their own codex, but it's entire possible to have rolled them into that same Supplemental Codex, which should be about as "thick" as the master Codex
Deathwatch and Grey Knights can then have a shared Codex lead by Inquisitors.

The indexes came really close to finally achieving this, but alas, GW wants you to buy as many books as possible

-

Yeah I would have loved buying a marine codex broken into 2 books, one all fluff for all the chapters then the other all the data sheets. They did it with the index after all

If marines had decent melle options - BT tactic would be awesome.

It isn't even really necessary. You only need the following for Loyalist Scum:
Master Codex with 8 of the founders, covering Successor Chapters and Renegades
Space Wolves
Grey Knights and Deathwatch in an Inquisition Codex? Or keep them separate for the time being.

Minor correction - there are only 8 loyalist Founders, and one of those is Space Wolves. So you meant 7 Founders in the first book.

Isnt there 9 loyalist chapters?

Ultramarines
Imperial fists
Raven guard
Salamanders
Dark angels
Blood angels
Space wolves
Iron hands
White scars

Bharring wrote:
Minor correction - there are only 8 loyalist Founders, and one of those is Space Wolves. So you meant 7 Founders in the first book.

Ultramarines, Salamanders, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, White Scars, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Dark Angels

That's 8

Space Wolves.

And you added Dark Angels-they don’t belong there!

Wow, I fail.

For some reason I thought it was 8 Loyalists, 10 Traitor, not 9-and-9.

Do the marines have a "bolter drill" strategem?

Let them volley out bolter shots at double the rate for a command points and it might set them straight...

 JNAProductions wrote:
Space Wolves.

And you added Dark Angels-they don’t belong there!

...Well you're not wrong

Bharring wrote:
Minor correction - there are only 8 loyalist Founders, and one of those is Space Wolves. So you meant 7 Founders in the first book.

All of them could be in the same book.

Got me with the DA joke though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

Literally nobody would complain about that

I wasn't talking in hypotheticals.

Then care to quote the people who claimed you can't give Marines good melee?

So, from what I remember, SOB and Gaurd use different bolt weapons than Astartes. Smaller and less powerful. I also don't imagine a commisar using a small rpg to execute someone within a few feet of himself or the people he is trying to command, or an officer using a rapid fire fragmentation projectile when he and his soldiers are relatively lightly armored. Why couldn't the proposed rule be astartes specific? "Astartes pattern bolters" could have the exploding 6s against non vehicles rule without influencing much in other bolt-using factions. Outside of heavy bolters being affected in the other imperial factions since those are generally frame/chassis supported systems.

EDIT: Actually, never mind. This won't lead to anyhing constructive anyway.

skysky wrote:

So, from what I remember, SOB and Gaurd use different bolt weapons than Astartes. Smaller and less powerful. I also don't imagine a commisar using a small rpg to execute someone within a few feet of himself or the people he is trying to command, or an officer using a rapid fire fragmentation projectile when he and his soldiers are relatively lightly armored. Why couldn't the proposed rule be astartes specific? "Astartes pattern bolters" could have the exploding 6s against non vehicles rule without influencing much in other bolt-using factions. Outside of heavy bolters being affected in the other imperial factions since those are generally frame/chassis supported systems.

From what I remember they do have different named rifles but probably similar caliber. The point is same name pretty sure, think it was outlined ages ago we could come up with a special ammo for just astartes, etc but why change a rifle that is apparent across multiple factions when it is survivability for cost that is the weakness of marines.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

skysky wrote:

So, from what I remember, SOB and Gaurd use different bolt weapons than Astartes. Smaller and less powerful. I also don't imagine a commisar using a small rpg to execute someone within a few feet of himself or the people he is trying to command, or an officer using a rapid fire fragmentation projectile when he and his soldiers are relatively lightly armored. Why couldn't the proposed rule be astartes specific? "Astartes pattern bolters" could have the exploding 6s against non vehicles rule without influencing much in other bolt-using factions. Outside of heavy bolters being affected in the other imperial factions since those are generally frame/chassis supported systems.

From what I remember they do have different named rifles but probably similar caliber. The point is same name pretty sure, think it was outlined ages ago we could come up with a special ammo for just astartes, etc but why change a rifle that is apparent across multiple factions when it is survivability for cost that is the weakness of marines.

Because their offense is actually the issue here. Why are we going to avoid the Bolter just because Sisters exist?

Also claiming the change is too hard because it's across multiple factions is just laughable. Marines are Marines.

How is the change laughable??? How many cross faction armies use the bolter type weapon stats atm? They relegated the same stats for ease, how hard will it be to reverse (a lot harder)

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
How is the change laughable??? How many cross faction armies use the bolter type weapon stats atm? They relegated the same stats for ease, how hard will it be to reverse (a lot harder)

Guard have little in the way for Bolt weaponry being used. So that leaves Sisters outside Marine variants.

It isn't that difficult to grasp.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
How is the change laughable??? How many cross faction armies use the bolter type weapon stats atm? They relegated the same stats for ease, how hard will it be to reverse (a lot harder)

Guard have little in the way for Bolt weaponry being used. So that leaves Sisters outside Marine variants.

It isn't that difficult to grasp.

K so just Some Imperial guard, All SM and sub factions, Most of Chaos, Most Inquisition, Most SoB, that's just if do a boltgun. I suggested an Emperor's benidiction round if talking just about affecting SM awhile ago if talking about that.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Do the marines have a "bolter drill" strategem?

Let them volley out bolter shots at double the rate for a command points and it might set them straight...

Only imperial fists know how to use bolters.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
How is the change laughable??? How many cross faction armies use the bolter type weapon stats atm? They relegated the same stats for ease, how hard will it be to reverse (a lot harder)

Guard have little in the way for Bolt weaponry being used. So that leaves Sisters outside Marine variants.

It isn't that difficult to grasp.

K so just Some Imperial guard, All SM and sub factions, Most of Chaos, Most Inquisition, Most SoB, that's just if do a boltgun. I suggested an Emperor's benidiction round if talking just about affecting SM awhile ago if talking about that.

Yeah so mostly just Marine variants and sisters. Nobody else takes Bolters en masse that this becomes an issue.

So it's not too many armies. Just:
SM
CSM
BA
DA
GK
SW
IG
SOB
Inq
Deathwatch
Custodes

It's only the majority of the books. That's not too much.

Most of those are just Marine variants.

Yeah, that's really just.

SM
IG (In tiny amounts)
SoB
Inq

Can custodes take bolters?

By that token, it's just everybody except:

-Space Elves
-Space Commies
-Space Bugs
-Space Hooligans

Bikes get hurricane bolters.

Could easily be replaced with “Vulcan Cannons”-same stats as now, but different name so as to separate them.

Bharring wrote:
So it's not too many armies. Just:
SM
CSM
BA
DA
GK
SW
IG
SOB
Inq
Deathwatch
Custodes

It's only the majority of the books. That's not too much.

No, it really isn't too much considering most of those are currently consider overcosted as-is.
The only unit I could see this change being "broken" on would be the Custodes bikes, but those could just get a points increase to fix that. Done

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
How is the change laughable??? How many cross faction armies use the bolter type weapon stats atm? They relegated the same stats for ease, how hard will it be to reverse (a lot harder)

Guard have little in the way for Bolt weaponry being used. So that leaves Sisters outside Marine variants.

It isn't that difficult to grasp.

What you’re saying is that an all metal army that until next year will have had had one codex in thirty years and an extremely sparse number of guard models are going to have their own special bolter variant.

There is no good reason at all to keep the guard version “normal” and make a better marine one.

Bharring wrote:
By that token, it's just everybody except:

-Space Elves
-Space Commies
-Space Bugs
-Space Hooligans

You forgot necrons and adeptus mechanicus.

You’re on the internet with the premise that you know things but you can’t count factions or legions and you used the term space commies, which isn’t even fluent in the setting. Get a clue, read a website, because vapid people who don’t read call them that, so it’s fine if you’re not speaking authoritatively.

No, I don’t respect that perspective.

(which makes for a huge majority of factions compared to marines and mortal humans.)

Bharring wrote:
By that token, it's just everybody except:

-Space Elves
-Space Commies
-Space Bugs
-Space Hooligans

Space Imperialists would be more accurate. Also that's ignoring

The Adeptus Mechanicus
Necrons
The fact that eldar come in 3 flavors which aren't even really comparable (even if they are souped so much XD)
Daemons?
Custodes (Where do they have bolters???)
Knights

Yes, the Eldar factions *are* very different. But if CSM and GK are considered just another flavor of Marines, then aren't Dark Eldar and CWE just another flavor of Eldar?

My point is that there are a *lot* of different Marine factions.

But yes, I did miss AdMech, Necrons, and Demons. Custodes have Hurricane Bolters (at least), and Knights are really hard to count as a "seperate army" when CSM, GK, Deathwatch, and Smurfs, among others, all get rolled into one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To elaborate, the response was a flippant counterexample of excessive reduction.

Spectral Ceramite wrote: it is survivability for cost that is the weakness of marines.

Plague marines and thousand sons are survivable marines and generally the problem people have with them is hey don’t do enough damage or give enough board control. I guess the answer is that PMs are over pointed? Maybe everything is fixable with 15 point loyalist plague marines but I think they still don’t do much damage.

Bs 3+ bolters and a bs3+ lascannon or melta doesn’t give a bloody nose to very much, even over three turns, and I think that’s a languid timeframe in a six turn game.

Bharring wrote:
Yes, the Eldar factions *are* very different. But if CSM and GK are considered just another flavor of Marines, then aren't Dark Eldar and CWE just another flavor of Eldar?

My point is that there are a *lot* of different Marine factions.

But yes, I did miss AdMech, Necrons, and Demons. Custodes have Hurricane Bolters (at least), and Knights are really hard to count as a "seperate army" when CSM, GK, Deathwatch, and Smurfs, among others, all get rolled into one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To elaborate, the response was a flippant counterexample of excessive reduction.

At this point, CSM are just SM. Now that marks are worth gak. They are just marines with less options. And all SM chapters other than GK and deathwatch should be rolled into one book, so eh.

Bharring wrote:
By that token, it's just everybody except:

-Space Elves
-Space Commies
-Space Bugs
-Space Hooligans

Pray tell how many weapons and stats the Space Elves share.

Truth is that there's too many Marine codices in the first place. In fact, if there weren't so many damned things added to Space Wolves, I would want them consolidated with the Angels into the primary codex. Grey Knights and Deathwatch can have their stuff go into an Inquisition codex with Sisters. There's too many books.

 Galef wrote:
Tesla is a good comparison, yes.
I wanted something that not only represented the Explosive Round (which is what I'll call this rule from now on), but also helped even basic Marines do more damage to a unit, not just models in a unit.

6s to wound cause 2 wound instead of 1 seems a decent and easy add-on

Bharring wrote:
Because reroll saves is actually *really* strong.

I'm not suggesting that, Slayer-Fan was and was commenting about my change

-

What about giving them Fury of the Legion? That is a skill that they had in the Heresy, why would they lose it over time?

The use of oldmarines compared to primaris is their special weapons.

FotL isn’t a skill they have for real, it’s a game thing. It’s a game thing that helps mass bolters and old marines aren’t massed bolter units, they’re mixed.

Mhm. That's better for Legion marines when you're talking 20 man squads with bolters, they had support squads. (I always thought support squads was a cool idea though, and it's kinda nice to see in primaris. Maybe we could do with it coming back.)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There is no good reason at all to keep the guard version “normal” and make a better marine one.

I would expect that a guardsman would require toned-down ammunition compared to a space marine, to avoid breaking his shoulder with the recoil!

I think a stratagem to pay for at the start of the game to give all bolter weapons a special rule (for special ammunition) would be the best option - it means that people who're running massed boltguns can choose to pay for the benefit, but people running minimum marines can keep them "cheap" and spend the CP elsewhere.

It would also be a lot easier to add in, using chapter approved, and simply list the codices which it can be used with.

ASTARTES PATTER BOLTERS --- 2CP
Add the following rule to all Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Storm Bolters, (etc, I don't have a full list of bolter weapons) and to the bolter profile of combi-weapons:
Astartes Pattern Bolters: any unmodified rolls of "6" to wound with this weapon inflict 3 wounds, as opposed to 1. Wounds caused against VEHICLE and TITANIC units do not generate additional rules.

ASTARTES PATTER BOLTERS --- 2CP
Add the following rule to all Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Storm Bolters, (etc, I don't have a full list of bolter weapons) and to the bolter profile of combi-weapons:
Astartes Pattern Bolters: any unmodified rolls of "6" to wound with this weapon inflict 3 wounds, as opposed to 1. Wounds caused against VEHICLE and TITANIC units do not generate additional rules.

Bharring wrote:
Yes, the Eldar factions *are* very different. But if CSM and GK are considered just another flavor of Marines, then aren't Dark Eldar and CWE just another flavor of Eldar?

My point is that there are a *lot* of different Marine factions.

But yes, I did miss AdMech, Necrons, and Demons. Custodes have Hurricane Bolters (at least), and Knights are really hard to count as a "seperate army" when CSM, GK, Deathwatch, and Smurfs, among others, all get rolled into one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To elaborate, the response was a flippant counterexample of excessive reduction.

Sisters of Silence also use Bolters

The various Marine Chapters are subfactions of the Space Marine faction with mostly minor cosmetic differences which are overempahsied or would be present in other chapters but for historic reasons get a specil Codex.

The Eldar Subfactions that are the equivalent of Marine Chapters are the Craftworlds, Kabals, Cults etc. The only reason that they don't get their own Codex (or Guard regiments, Ork Klans etc) is the release schedule is always clogged with Marines.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

ASTARTES PATTER BOLTERS --- 2CP
Add the following rule to all Bolters, Heavy Bolters, Storm Bolters, (etc, I don't have a full list of bolter weapons) and to the bolter profile of combi-weapons:
Astartes Pattern Bolters: any unmodified rolls of "6" to wound with this weapon inflict 3 wounds, as opposed to 1. Wounds caused against VEHICLE and TITANIC units do not generate additional rules.

My issue with that is it hurts monstrous creatures with x3 wounds on a 6 but not vehicles? Why not make it when it targets INFANTRY and SWARMS instead.

Hellblasters already do enough of a great job invalidating my Tyranid Monsters, I don't want to suffer any more running my Nidzilla!

Good point, I had forgotten about monsters! I can roll with only affecting infantry and swarms. I think a bolter would be insignificant to a monster.

An alternative, to keep the bite on other things, is 3 wounds on infantry / swarms, and 2 wounds on vehicles/monsters/titanic.

A really easy change would be to add the following to all bolter weapons: "When rolling to wound against infantry and biker models you can reroll failed to wound rolls".

Clean easy and effective. Gives a clear role to bolter weapons and reduces the reliancy on auras.

So a Mutilator and a Tac Marine are the same thing with minor variatons, but a Corsair and a Guardian are miles apart?

All Eldar share the base stats:
S3
T3
M7
WS3+
BS3+
Standard armor: 5+

All Marines share:
S4
T4
M6
WS3+
BS3+
Standard armor 3+


The difference between UltraMarines and Blood Angels is much akin to the difference between CWE and Corsairs.

The biggest difference between Eldar factions is probably CWE Guardian Warhosts and DE Covens. But how is that any more different than Smurfs vs Plague Marines?

Further, even if you assume half the armies in the game are one army (Space Marines have about a dozen different books), to do this fairly, you'd need to modify almost every other book. CWE, DE, and IG probably won't need as much attention, but there are more armies - Necrons, T'au, Demons, and especially Nids - that go from screwed to more-screwed with this change. So you'd need to adjust them, too.

So you *might* be able to leave maybe a half dozen books out of what, 20-some untouched?

Spoletta wrote:
A really easy change would be to add the following to all bolter weapons: "When rolling to wound against infantry and biker models you can reroll failed to wound rolls".

Clean easy and effective. Gives a clear role to bolter weapons and reduces the reliancy on auras.

The thing I’ll say for this is that it gives something to a single captain with his single weapon that does only a couple shots. The Galef procs on on 6 effects and worse yet the some bloke strategem. No, I want the character to be able to reliably get the effect, not just two shots out a very big squad. Come to think of it, characters have MC bolters with D2 you’ve now given them a random effect that doesn’t reliably help them but can also do 6 damage at very infrequent intervals. A combat squad where one model has a plasma gun and the sergeant isn’t fire two full-bs bolter shots doesn’t get very much out of this either.

I’ve never been interested in rerolls for basic weapons but it’s sure better than random sixes.

Reroll wounds is faster to track, simpler to explain, and is less skewed towards affecting heavy targets over light targets (like Guardsmen).

It's a cleaner solution that does basically the same thing.

The difference between UltraMarines and Blood Angels is much akin to the difference between CWE and Corsairs.

So Blood Angels aren't playable?

And who cares if you have to change a lot of gak. Sometimes to fix things sweeping changes are needed.

This aversion to fixing things just because it effects X amount of codices is downright silly.

The only fix boltguns need is AP-1. Of course because of primaris we can't have that, see this hole GW dug normal space marines in?

Corsairs are technically playable now.

I'm saying that Corsairs are no more different from CWE than BA are from UltraMarines. BA certainly have a lot more options than Corsairs. I'm fairly sure BA have more options that differ from UltraMarines than Corsairs have options period.

We can rewrite the game, certainly. But we need to recognize if we're going to change Boltguns, we're going to be changing most of the armies in the game.

That's fine by me. Actually the only fix I think is needed doesn't need a rewrite.


2W, 2A, -1 AP marines. Marine boltguns are superior to human held boltguns.

But yes, other changes would need a rewrite. I think alot of that could be solved by getting rid of BA, DA, SW, TS, and DG as their own books.

There is no good point at all in making the tiny, almost irrelevant portion of non space marine boltguns a special kind of weak boltgun. That’s just vacuous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, on the other hand, making power armor really good offensively with offensive bonuses, that’s a definitely amazing way to make marines better than guard sergeants.

I agree when it comes to guard. Just make it cost a few extra points.

But you got SoB who all have boltguns. Now, they might not oppose to -1 AP either, even if it needs a small point bump. So maybe it's fine either way.

Yeah that’s much better game design to keep them uniform.

If you were going to insist on microscopically realistic rules maybe there’d be a hit penalty for moving and firing, or something siilare, but what would be the benefit to the game experience, I think it’d be a minor effect.

+1 to consistency.

If Boltguns do get AP-1 (not something I'd want), giving it to SOB and in a few places to Custodes/IG/Inq would be better than splitting the Boltgun into two weapons or adding some fancy rules hacking. Those units could be repointed after the change, but nearly everything needs repointing after such a change anyways.

That’s a good example for people who talk about universal formulas for point costs. If guard commanders could upgrade to an s4 ap-1 gun for three points, it wouldn’t change the way the army plays at all. People might not even bother converting their models if it cost just a single solitary point to get a bolt gun. Infantry squads would be the same, tanks would be the same, and the army would use all the same tactics, probably even if every sergeant in every squad got a free ap-1 boltgun.

If a squad of guard vets could buy them, then that would be something very sensitive to points.

Bharring wrote:
So a Mutilator and a Tac Marine are the same thing with minor variatons, but a Corsair and a Guardian are miles apart?

All Eldar share the base stats:
S3
T3
M7
WS3+
BS3+
Standard armor: 5+

All Marines share:
S4
T4
M6
WS3+
BS3+
Standard armor 3+


The difference between UltraMarines and Blood Angels is much akin to the difference between CWE and Corsairs.

The biggest difference between Eldar factions is probably CWE Guardian Warhosts and DE Covens. But how is that any more different than Smurfs vs Plague Marines?

Further, even if you assume half the armies in the game are one army (Space Marines have about a dozen different books), to do this fairly, you'd need to modify almost every other book. CWE, DE, and IG probably won't need as much attention, but there are more armies - Necrons, T'au, Demons, and especially Nids - that go from screwed to more-screwed with this change. So you'd need to adjust them, too.

So you *might* be able to leave maybe a half dozen books out of what, 20-some untouched?

Yeah, cos all Eldar are S3 T3 - lets talk Grotesuques and Wracks. There is a lot of pretend difference between the majority of Space Marine Chapters who they haev not bothered to do anything for and the super snowflake ones. Almost every pretend unique unit in a Snowflake chapter would be present as a equivalent in another Chapter or Chapters. 95% of all these uits could be included as extra weapon or similar options in standard datasheets without any real effort.

"Yeah, cos all Eldar are S3 T3 - lets talk Grotesuques and Wracks."
Because all Marines are S4T4?
Grots? Have you seen Mutilators?
Wracks? Have you seen Poxwalkers?

"There is a lot of pretend difference between the majority of Space Marine Chapters who they haev not bothered to do anything for and the super snowflake ones."
Agreed. BA isn't very different from UltraMarines. But GK, CSM, DG, and Tsons certainly are.

I do agree that BA, DA, and maybe SW could be folded into SM, but it'd take a lot more to fold the others.

DG and TS should be folded back into CSM with marks actually doing gak.

GK and Deathwatch would have to stay separate, though I think those could fit in an inquisition book nicely.

I don't mind grouping:
-Loyalist Marines - SM, BA, DA, SW
-GK
-Deathwatch
-CSM - CSM, DG, Tsons

But grouping Deathguard, GK, and SM as one goes too far.

Bharring wrote:
I don't mind grouping:
-Loyalist Marines - SM, BA, DA, SW
-GK
-Deathwatch
-CSM - CSM, DG, Tsons

But grouping Deathguard, GK, and SM as one goes too far.

All Space Marines in one, maybe have Grey Knights as one as we can;t get rid of crap like babycarriers.

I'd rather they had Chaos Power dexes plus undivided and Dark Mech

 Mr Morden wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I don't mind grouping:
-Loyalist Marines - SM, BA, DA, SW
-GK
-Deathwatch
-CSM - CSM, DG, Tsons

But grouping Deathguard, GK, and SM as one goes too far.

All Space Marines in one, maybe have Grey Knights as one as we can;t get rid of crap like babycarriers.

I'd rather they had Chaos Power dexes plus undivided and Dark Mech

Honestly the Cult Legions might need to be separated entirely after all the bizarre stuff they released for Death Guard and Thousand Sons. That would allow greater focus on balancing Black Legion, Alpha Legion, Night Lords, Iron Warriors, and Word Bearers for a single Codex.

Nah, with marks that actually do shiz we can represent them all fairly well. Each legion should have 1-2 unique units, maybe 3.

It should be
Codex: CSM
Codex: SM
Codex: Inquisition

Sir Heckington wrote:
Nah, with marks that actually do shiz we can represent them all fairly well. Each legion should have 1-2 unique units, maybe 3.

It should be
Codex: CSM
Codex: SM
Codex: Inquisition

Hmm, it would be more difficult for CSM, but at least NOT impossible.

Regarding Space Wolves, that would depend on how we incorporate them. Making all the Claws into one entry would probably do the trick. Then you would have to keep TWC and Wulfen.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Nah, with marks that actually do shiz we can represent them all fairly well. Each legion should have 1-2 unique units, maybe 3.

It should be
Codex: CSM
Codex: SM
Codex: Inquisition

Hmm, it would be more difficult for CSM, but at least NOT impossible.

Regarding Space Wolves, that would depend on how we incorporate them. Making all the Claws into one entry would probably do the trick. Then you would have to keep TWC and Wulfen.

That would work fine. It'd also let us introduce units to other sub factions, such as medusan immortals, tyrant siege terminators and more.

I'm all for the Chapters getting a few unique units for sure. Personally for Iron Hands I would do the Iron Father, the Helfathers, and maybe those Immortals or maybe a generic HQ Dread.

Sir Heckington wrote:
DG and TS should be folded back into CSM with marks actually doing gak.

GK and Deathwatch would have to stay separate, though I think those could fit in an inquisition book nicely.

Death Guard have a lesser part of this problem, but the Thousand Sons really cannot be built in a satisfying way without a specific book and a specific army list. The organization is just so fundamentally different from the baseline assumptions of a CSM warband. It's a much larger difference than the distinction between Ultramarines and Dark Angels, that's for sure.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
DG and TS should be folded back into CSM with marks actually doing gak.

GK and Deathwatch would have to stay separate, though I think those could fit in an inquisition book nicely.

Death Guard have a lesser part of this problem, but the Thousand Sons really cannot be built in a satisfying way without a specific book and a specific army list. The organization is just so fundamentally different from the baseline assumptions of a CSM warband. It's a much larger difference than the distinction between Ultramarines and Dark Angels, that's for sure.

That's my primary issue. Loyalists all have only a slight variation of the same Chapter Organization. It's easy enough to throw them into the same codex (though Space Wolves are a much harder task as they keep getting crap added as is).

Death Guard and Thousand Sons got the treatment of getting a bunch of specific crap as well, but in a much different manner compared to how the Loyalists did.

Thousand sons can still be folded.

Tzaangors and all beastmen can be folded into a lost and the damned codex, as it should be. Then, generic units like Rubric marines can be represented through a Mark of Tzeentch. Their special terminators can be a unit, along with something else. All legions would get a few special units, and hopefully better specific rules (Like 30k).

For the sake of tradition (2nd Ed.) Marine infantry gets to fire one extra shot with bolt weapons, per "rate of fire number". Rapid Fire 1 gets two shots at long range, 3 at short range. Storm Bolters fire 4 shots at long range, 6 at short range.

In 2nd they could simply fire twice if they stood still, but I'd rather reduce the output and keep them mobile instead.

---

If you wanted to continue going traditional, give all their heavy weapons a +1 to hit, as in 2nd edition all their heavy weapons came with Targeters. Which would be amazingly good. I don't necessarily recommend this, but it's academically interesting.

The less said about 2nd the better.

Martel732 wrote:
The less said about 2nd the better.

Looking to the past isn't automatically good, but that's not really a counter argument either.

It did have the benefit of not making boltguns different, at least. A boltgun was a boltgun whether held by an Ork, guardsmen or marine, the weapon itself had the same stats. Marines just got to shoot it twice if they stood still.

I also like that it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The less said about 2nd the better.

Looking to the past isn't automatically good, but that's not really a counter argument either.

It did have the benefit of not making boltguns different, at least. A boltgun was a boltgun whether held by an Ork, guardsmen or marine, the weapon itself had the same stats. Marines just got to shoot it twice if they stood still.

I also like that it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

it’s way cleaner than rerolls.

Yes it was just being held by a marine. It is hugely bothering that the text of the rule just said the marine plants his feet, braces himself, and lets rip with the bolter. It’s so stupid, as though a guardsman or a orknor guardian couldn’t also do that, and you had to have the special rule, if perchamce it were left out of the space wolf or chaos books the same essential marine wouldn’t be able to.

Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The less said about 2nd the better.

Looking to the past isn't automatically good, but that's not really a counter argument either.

It did have the benefit of not making boltguns different, at least. A boltgun was a boltgun whether held by an Ork, guardsmen or marine, the weapon itself had the same stats. Marines just got to shoot it twice if they stood still.

I also like that it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

it’s way cleaner than rerolls.

Yes it was just being held by a marine. It is hugely bothering that the text of the rule just said the marine plants his feet, braces himself, and lets rip with the bolter. It’s so stupid, as though a guardsman or a orknor guardian couldn’t also do that, and you had to have the special rule, if perchamce it were left out of the space wolf or chaos books the same essential marine wouldn’t be able to.

Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

Fair enough, no Scouts. Make it a byproduct of more experience and the interface between Black Carapace and Power Armor to exclude Scouts, Sisters of Battle etc. I'd also keep it off Bikes. Bikes are a little strange anyways at the moment with both the rider and the bike shooting.

I’m pretty ambivalent about it affecting sisters or not. I don’t know that it should be limited to bolters either.

Any (space marine) infantry model in power armor, who does not have a -1 to their to hit roll from normal movement, may fire (any form of bolt gun or bolt pistol) their weapons an additional time in their shooting phase. This ability may be used by models that advanced, usually allowing them to fire once.

One of the things I am growing a distaste for in the Proposed rules forum is how complicated some suggestions are or become.
While I certainly welcome constructive criticism on a proposed rules, when a simple easy change morphs into an overly complicated thing just because it benefits X more than Y, I immediately lose interest.

Not picking out anyone in particular, but pointing out that a very simple easy change has gone on for 7 pages so far with little consensus. I was particularly proud of this idea and very glad there was some early enthusiasm for it that allowed my original proposal to be "refined"

I truly feel that "Explosive Rounds" dealing 2 wounds for each roll of a 6 to wound against non-Vehicles is not only a fair and fluffy rule, but a needed one.
I am well aware of how many factions it would affect, which was the point. Bolters are largely pretty crap and should have something that makes them worthwhile in mass as well as being much better than Lasguns (which they aren't).
This could have been the rule to fix it, but many appear to disagree. That's fine, I guess, just disappointing

-

Honestly I liked your fix.

I also agree on how complicated some rules become in this subforum. All I wanted to give Terminators was WS/BS2+ and maybe an extra attack. You instead have people stacking on rules with old Relentless, ignoring penalties with unwieldy weapons, even though my fix did all that AND touched other kinds of Terminators.

 Galef wrote:
One of the things I am growing a distaste for in the Proposed rules forum is how complicated some suggestions are or become.
While I certainly welcome constructive criticism on a proposed rules, when a simple easy change morphs into an overly complicated thing just because it benefits X more than Y, I immediately lose interest.

Not picking out anyone in particular, but pointing out that a very simple easy change has gone on for 7 pages so far with little consensus. I was particularly proud of this idea and very glad there was some early enthusiasm for it that allowed my original proposal to be "refined"

I truly feel that "Explosive Rounds" dealing 2 wounds for each roll of a 6 to wound against non-Vehicles is not only a fair and fluffy rule, but a needed one.
-

It seems like lots of people thought it wasn’t simple.

A really easy change would be to add the following to all bolter weapons: "When rolling to wound against infantry and biker models you can reroll failed to wound rolls".

Clean easy and effective. Gives a clear role to bolter weapons and reduces the reliancy on auras.

also like that (a different rule) it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

I keep seeing this, but don't understand how it would work. There's no POWER ARMOR keyword in the rules anywhere. Space Marines just have a 3+ save; sure, we all know from the fluff that its because they wear Power Armor, but there's no distinction in the rules for this. Similarly there's no keyword representing Scout Armor, they just have a 4+ save stat.

Having the rule on the weapon is significantly easier than editing every single datasheet of models that are wearing power armor to reflect that. It's not like bolters are all that common in other forces really (well except SoB).

Reroll to-wound vs Infantry of Biker is indeed quite simple and easy, but man is it powerful

Yes they are, however one of the things with rerolls is that you always get them even when it’s just one model shooting. Also unlike exploding shells, you’ve said that you feel it will be effective the effect in gameplay on say a five marine combat squad seems less than cosmetic. It’s biggest effect seems to be having something on paper to separate bolters from shootas or lasguns, but in game it seems very limited.

Between the the three I’d pick rerolls closely tied with no change at all, then exploding shells in third place because it is too much of an extra rule without effecting either the models I want (like captains who roll few sixes) or enough of a difference in anything else.

For me, there might be a slightly substantial number of words in the rules, comparable to exploding shells, but on the table there are aren’t even a round of rerolls or separate results.

 Kcalehc wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

I keep seeing this, but don't understand how it would work. There's no POWER ARMOR keyword in the rules anywhere. Space Marines just have a 3+ save; sure, we all know from the fluff that its because they wear Power Armor, but there's no distinction in the rules for this. Similarly there's no keyword representing Scout Armor, they just have a 4+ save stat.

Having the rule on the weapon is significantly easier than editing every single datasheet of models that are wearing power armor to reflect that. It's not like bolters are all that common in other forces really (well except SoB).

Traditionally armor was a war gear item and not a profile characteristic “save stat.” A reason this is changed may be that only a few types of armor had effects other than their save, whereas in most GW games other than 40k power armor does have other effects, starting in RT.

I think for some players’ purposes, proposed rules are house rules or tournament packs, in which case keywords aren’t essential. For others, this is speculation or suggestion for official GW corrections, in which case chapter approved changes might be dicey, but it might also apply to ninth edition where amendments can be done by fiat, or it’s not expected to matter because GW isn’t interested anyway.

I guess, for me, simplicity shouldn't involve both a rule change AND points change. Should be one or the other.
Giving all Bolter weapons reroll to-wound against Infantry and Bikes might require some point adjustments on some units, which complicates things.

I certainly like rerolls to-wound for Bolters, but if we added it overnight, there would be a massive power shift, and not necessarily for the betterment of the game.
But I am warming to the idea, since it does represent exploding rounds pretty well.

-

well, would Re-Rolls vs Infantry alone be as bad?

and would it be a point rais eof say, oh I dont know, the 2-3 points we're all hoping CA removes?

effectively making it the change we need for free?

I don't think it would be too powerful on just Infantry, just odd. What wouldn't a Bike or Monster feel the affects of an exploding rounds?

No, the more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with "Exploding Rounds" just flat out being reroll to-wound against all non-Vehicle units

The only downside is that Primaris Lieutenants would need a new aura rule.

-

A free Shred is never a good idea unless the model is ridiculously expensive.

I mean, both Lieutenants will...

however, it is something I dont quite know how I feel about, that an army suddenly gains re-roll to wounds with basic weaponry.

I get that it does a thing, it just does nothing except make glass cannon armies feel glassier
whereas at least an extra save on a 6 would be occaisionally-glassier, not blanket getting shredded by basic fire.

Yeah, if we are handing out Shred, overcosted units would stay as-is. So a 13ppm Marine becomes worth that cost.
Termies with Stormbolter get better too.

But Custodes bikes would need a price hike, for sure

-

 Galef wrote:

Not picking out anyone in particular, but pointing out that a very simple easy change has gone on for 7 pages so far with little consensus.

Honestly, that's why I tend not to frequent proposed rules.

Imo an extra wound on a 6 doesn't appear to meaningfully affect the damage output of a squad. If I'm not mistaken, it seems bit skewed towards higher toughness models rather than dealing with the GEQ that everyone tends to be upset about.

The more I hear the re-roll idea the more I think it is the perfect fix for marines.

Remove the stupid auras from the HQs and make the cheaper. Let marine infantry of all flavors re-roll 1's to hit and 1's to wound in combat and shooting. All hits if they stand still or charge.

Helps with the overall price of the army by reducing the over-costed HQs. Allows marines to play like marines instead of worse IG castles. Solves the Guilliman problem, helps the mobility issues, helps offensive output, is simple universal rule, helps all marine units without worrying about sisters/guard.

Hell, since re-rolls are baked into the price of marines as is why not just give it to them all the time and allow marine characters to be heroes.

Easier than exploding sixes with restrictions and cross faction issues. Already a 8th mechanic people are familiar with and would only take a couple lines in next years FAQ to fix (remove auras from HQs, reduce prices of HQs and three lines to add re-roll 1's to hit and wound for sm infantry, re-roll all misses in shooting if model did not move in previous player turn and re-roll all CqC on the charge).

Reroll 1's to Wound against all targets is also a good fix for Bolter weapons. It skews it less toward high T targets like Rerolling any failed to-wound would (since there would inherently be more failed rolls to reroll than against, say T3)

Yep, that's what I'm going with:
Explosive Rounds = Bolters of all types reroll 1's to wound.

-

I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

Well sure if you wanted something conclusive you’d have to be in a forum for tournament organizers, where most of the posters had to come to individual decisions and use it in some timeframe. Of course there isn’t much of a culture of do it yourself rules but that’s a place to find what there is.

It’s like how if you want to see some interesting fan made background you look through painting logs for someone who has also written background. The actual fan made forum sections mostly have arguments and uninteresting posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

There’s nothing intrinsic about marines that demands they cluster around characters. Like the fellow says:

Remove the stupid auras from the HQs and make the cheaper. Let marine infantry of all flavors re-roll 1's to hit and 1's to wound in combat and shooting. All hits if they stand still or charge.

Helps with the overall price of the army by reducing the over-costed HQs. Allows marines to play like marines instead of worse IG castles. Solves the Guilliman problem, helps the mobility issues, helps offensive output, is simple universal rule, helps all marine units without worrying about sisters/guard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I don’t like baked-in refills at all that’s bad, but character auras are stupid and really negatively affect the way the army plays.

People are only bitching about GEQ because it's still criminally undercosted compared to just about everything. That, and they can be shoehorned into virtually anything else ever...

my primary army, as seen by my Avatar, is not Space Marines, but I can totally see how the bolter needs buffing to be valid.

Necron Warriors come in squads of 10 minimum, at 120 points.
They have the exact same statline as Marines, with one exeption: a 4+ save.

Before we get into intense maths on the surviveability of the two units, for near enough the same price (120 vs 119), you get 10 warriors, or 9 marines where the sergeat has a Storm Bolter

at 24" range, unsupported by anything, this is the same number of shots, hitting and wounding on the same score, and after Necron modifiers, the same armour saves on both sides, for:
10 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 1.67 unsaved wounds, for 2 dead guys each if we round mathematically, 1 each if absolutely

at 12" range though, the numbers become less clean. The Necrons get:
20 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 3.33
whereas the Marines get:
22 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 3.67

The killing power doesnt change much between them actually, so it might not be quite so bad as first thought.

However, once we bring buffs into this, things get a lot worse. Not counting rerolls or bonuses, just the improvements to the guns given by this suggestion and the Necron Dakka Code: Mephrit (purely because guns and bullets and wounding is the topic, not the necessity for rerolls and stuff)

Necrons at 24"
10 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 1.67
Necrons at 12"
20 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3)] = 4.44

Space Marines at 24"
10 * [(2/3)*((1/2)+((1/6)*(1/2))*(1/2)] = 1.94
Space Marines at 12"
22 * [(2/3)*((1/2)+((1/6)*(1/2))*(1/2)] = 4.27

YMMV, but seems like rerolling 1s isnt a terrible idea. They gain a small bump at long range, and then the same level of ramp up in unsaved wounds for getting into RF

Yeah, I'm holding judgement until after CA. If Marines go down in cost AND Gaurdsmen/Cultists and other similar chaff untis go up in cost, it may very well balance out.
Time will tell

At any rate, I am very glad to see that GW is making small changes over time, rather than big changes that last whole editions. They've had a tendency in the past to over-do it, so it is nice to see they've learned from that

-

pelicaniforce wrote:
Well sure if you wanted something conclusive you’d have to be in a forum for tournament organizers, where most of the posters had to come to individual decisions and use it in some timeframe. Of course there isn’t much of a culture of do it yourself rules but that’s a place to find what there is.

It’s like how if you want to see some interesting fan made background you look through painting logs for someone who has also written background. The actual fan made forum sections mostly have arguments and uninteresting posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

There’s nothing intrinsic about marines that demands they cluster around characters. Like the fellow says:

Remove the stupid auras from the HQs and make the cheaper. Let marine infantry of all flavors re-roll 1's to hit and 1's to wound in combat and shooting. All hits if they stand still or charge.

Helps with the overall price of the army by reducing the over-costed HQs. Allows marines to play like marines instead of worse IG castles. Solves the Guilliman problem, helps the mobility issues, helps offensive output, is simple universal rule, helps all marine units without worrying about sisters/guard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I don’t like baked-in refills at all that’s bad, but character auras are stupid and really negatively affect the way the army plays.

Nothing demands they cluster around Characters, but fixes for Marines need to focus on two demands:
1. Make them less dependent on those auras
2. Make sure that, if an aura is used, it isn't redundant and too expensive.

That's why Salamanders are easily one of the worst armies conceived this edition so far. You get ONE reroll, and those campers had the aura buffing them most likely too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That's why Salamanders are easily one of the worst armies conceived this edition so far. You get ONE reroll, and those campers had the aura buffing them most likely too.

Two rerolls, one for hit and one for wound. Also for CC.

The other way to think about it is that every heavy weapon you deploy can have Guide and Doom on it automatically. And you have the freedom not to blob.

Except Guide and Doom affect every weapon. Or, in the case of Doom, everyone attacking a particular target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also LOL that it affects melee. That doesn't do anything for Marines and you know that.

Yeah but what about that Sgt you gave that power sword to?


Lol that never happens

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except Guide and Doom affect every weapon. Or, in the case of Doom, everyone attacking a particular target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also LOL that it affects melee. That doesn't do anything for Marines and you know that.

Guide is in on squad, vs. Salamanders on potentially every heavy weapon in your army. (=moar). Doom is one target, vs. Salamanders whatever you want to shoot at (can effect more than one enemy unit).

A 2 attack Salamanders sergeant with Thunder Hammer out performs a vanilla Vanguard Sergeant with same. If I ran Salamanders I'd be looking in to that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except Guide and Doom affect every weapon. Or, in the case of Doom, everyone attacking a particular target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also LOL that it affects melee. That doesn't do anything for Marines and you know that.

Guide is in on squad, vs. Salamanders on potentially every heavy weapon in your army. (=moar). Doom is one target, vs. Salamanders whatever you want to shoot at (can effect more than one enemy unit).

A 2 attack Salamanders sergeant with Thunder Hammer out performs a vanilla Vanguard Sergeant with same. If I ran Salamanders I'd be looking in to that.

Don't Vanguard Sarges have three attacks?

^they do. Im just pointing out that a "normal" Salamanders Tactical sergeant can pull more weight in CC than the Vanguard Vet sergeants of other Chapters, even though they have fewer attacks. Imo there are interesting possibilities there.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^they do. Im just pointing out that a "normal" Salamanders Tactical sergeant can pull more weight in CC than the Vanguard Vet sergeants of other Chapters, even though they have fewer attacks. Imo there are interesting possibilities there.

Did do that in a non-comp game. While it was fun scaring DPs with Tac squads it was too much of a point sink to work out competitively.

The only real thing I would do with Salamanders is change the strat to affect meltas as well as flamers, and give the a relic a +1 wound alongside the toughness, its very rarely a better pick than the shield eternal for tankiness.

Digression aside. I'd prefer the bolter to remain the bolter, just for the sake of the game there needs to be a standard weapon and because of context its going to be the S4 AP- Bolter. I would however like Marines to become an army that helped leverage those bolters more effectively by giving us better board positioning options than we currently have.

 Galef wrote:
I don't think it would be too powerful on just Infantry, just odd. What wouldn't a Bike or Monster feel the affects of an exploding rounds?

No, the more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with "Exploding Rounds" just flat out being reroll to-wound against all non-Vehicle units

The only downside is that Primaris Lieutenants would need a new aura rule.

-

Kinda spits in the face of Tyranids and othe monster heavy armies. Monstrous creatures can shrug off anti tank weaponry like a lot of armoured vehicles and buildings, most of the time bolt gun would tickle.

I'm okay with the exploding rounds causing 2 separate wounds on a wound roll of 6 against INFANTRY, SWARMS and BIKERS/CAVALRY.

But not on a Carnifex or Wraithlord, they can tear apart terminator armour with their bare hands, bolters are love kisses, Marines have no shortage of las cannons or other weaponry to drown MC's in.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

I wouldn't see why. It's not like Lts are there for bolters. They are there to buff special weapons, so you will still use Lts near dev squads, hellblasters, vehicles and so on.
The tac squad should be an element of the army which is capable of independent operation, which can be achieved by putting the rerolls into the basic weapons.

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

I wouldn't see why. It's not like Lts are there for bolters. They are there to buff special weapons, so you will still use Lts near dev squads, hellblasters, vehicles and so on.
The tac squad should be an element of the army which is capable of independent operation, which can be achieved by putting the rerolls into the basic weapons.

Lts are there for everyone. Even you're trying to use them mostly for the Special/Heavy Weapons, you're trying to get the most bang for your buck.

In this case, Lts would be worth even less in an army.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I don't think it would be too powerful on just Infantry, just odd. What wouldn't a Bike or Monster feel the affects of an exploding rounds?

No, the more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with "Exploding Rounds" just flat out being reroll to-wound against all non-Vehicle units

The only downside is that Primaris Lieutenants would need a new aura rule.

-

Kinda spits in the face of Tyranids and othe monster heavy armies. Monstrous creatures can shrug off anti tank weaponry like a lot of armoured vehicles and buildings, most of the time bolt gun would tickle.

I'm okay with the exploding rounds causing 2 separate wounds on a wound roll of 6 against INFANTRY, SWARMS and BIKERS/CAVALRY.

But not on a Carnifex or Wraithlord, they can tear apart terminator armour with their bare hands, bolters are love kisses, Marines have no shortage of las cannons or other weaponry to drown MC's in.

I think people have moved from regular rerolls to wound on to rerolling ones to wound. It’s self regulating, it works on low toughness creatures but not very well on high toughness.

I’d really really like to chuck the whole idea of picking up any kind of wound results other than straight pass or fail.

Changed my mind... Bolters should be -1 to armour save.

Astartes should have innate abilities to use them differently. Alt fire modes if you will.

As they are elite assault troops they should be able to fire bolters as assault 2 weapons.

If they are mowing down the oncoming horde they should have the option of using them as rapid fire 2, str 3, ap 0 weapons, to represent them using the mass reactive ammo and auto targeting senses to best effect to sow confusion in a charging hordes ranks.