Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

Would you rather have your marines equipped with lasguns?

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

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

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

In reverse order...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

what's queer about my sign off?
AF

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

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

I like a bitta plohzma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And not get hot.

And I want a Pony and an Icecream.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well....

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

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

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

AF

Wrexasaur wrote:

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

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

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

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

Wrexasaur wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrexasaur wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ailaros wrote:In reverse order...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having said that-

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

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

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