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.

Peanut beutter and jelly, yuck

Though we've gotten rather far afield, I'd like to clarify my last post. I did not intend to argue that the Shuriken Catapult, as the product of an advanced race, ought to have a higher strength than any basic weapon of a less advanced race. All I was saying was that the Shuriken Catapult ought to be generally superior. There's a reason that we don't use Mausers - the m16 is a generally superior weapon when you consider battlefield effectiveness and cost. Now, we can immediately exclude cost from our consideration of the Eldar - given their population difficulties, they should obviously be willing to spend more equipping every soldier than any other faction. This is especially true when we adjust for tech levels - the equivalent of a Pulse Rifle and Carapace Armor costs the Eldar almost nothing relative to what it costs the Tau. If it was the case that a Mauser was easier to build and maintain while being comparable in battlefield effectiveness, we'd be using Mausers. If it was the case that a shotgun or Bolter was easier to build and maintain than a ShuriCat (and I argue that it's clear that the Eldar are willing to spend more per troop than are even the Tau) while being of comparable battlefield effectiveness, then the Eldar would use Bolters. Given that the Eldar use ShuriCats for the same tasks that the Imperium uses Bolters and the Tau use Pulse Rifles, and given that they're the faction with the best technology and the most willingness to spend on their troops weaponry (not armor, though), it follows that they'd have the better weapon.

What's nonsense would be an Imperial shotgun that's almost as effective as a Shuriken Catapult, or a Bolter that's comparable to a ShuriCat. Yes, the Bolter/Shotgun might have a higher strength, but consistency demands that the ShuriCat be a generally superior weapon, whether this be accomplished through range, strength, AP, rate of fire, or other rule. The only factor that we can't compare directly across factions is cost, and I think it's clear that the Eldar are willing to pay more and that Eldar equipment costs less (more advanced production technology).

The thing is the Space Elfs approach war in a ritualized manner consistant with tradition no wtih effectiveness.

Logically everyone in the army should have a 3+ save and a starcannon. Aspect warriors should have Banshee Masks, powerswords, fusion guns and swooping hawk wings etc etc. All things within the limits of eldar tech.

We can use more fluff to explain why not, both the ritual aspect and the fact that Eldar weapons are partially psychic powered so an ordinary guardian might not be able to use aspect warrior weapons.

This of course is the problem with introducing logic to a GW game.

Posted By Gotchaye on 12/10/2006 12:57 PM
If it was the case that a Mauser was easier to build and maintain while being comparable in battlefield effectiveness, we'd be using Mausers. If it was the case that a shotgun or Bolter was easier to build and maintain than a ShuriCat (and I argue that it's clear that the Eldar are willing to spend more per troop than are even the Tau) while being of comparable battlefield effectiveness, then the Eldar would use Bolters.

There's a flaw in that logic and it's that people don't always behave rationally.

Consider the M16 vs. the AK-47 when the M16 was first introduced.  The Americans had their engineers make a super hi-tech futuristic weapon.  The Soviets asked for a cheap, reliable, practical weapon that was designed for use in the real world.  On paper the M16 looked superior, but in the jungle it proved to be far from an asset.  They were quick to jam (admittedly shipped with the incorrect ammo then what was specified for the weapon), prone to breaking down when not kept in near perfect condition, when the broke they were difficult to repair in the field... etc.  The AK-47 had the exact opposite attributes- it could be fired or fixed by a simpleton, could use nearly any ammo, be unjammed using brute force, opperated with sand or water gummed up in them...  While less accurate, full of kick and comparitively crude, they didn't fail their users like the mercurial M16.  American soldiers were literally dieing because of the growing pains associated with making the transition to this hi-tech new assault rifle.  Did the Americans choose the logical option and replace the troublesome weapons with something along the lines of the AK-47, or even tell their soldiers they could use the AK's?  No- the high-tech rifle was a statement of American ingenuity and the AK was tainted because it was a crude Soviet weapon.  The psychological and political ramifications would've been staggering, no?

However, if we're going there, the example of Wraithguard has to be brought up. The things violate just about every cultural taboo the Eldar have - surely they'd break with tradition and arm their troops a bit better before doing that.

Regardless, I'm hardly advocating that the game faithfully implement the logical quantitative power relations we can derive from the background - as you say, that'd be absurd. We'd have the Necrons with a single ten man squad in a 1500 point game, the Eldar with slightly more, Marines with thirty or forty, and untold hordes of Guardsmen and Gaunts.

What does bother me is that qualitative power relations aren't maintained in the translation from background to game. Really, all I ask is that there not be anything as silly as what was earlier brought up - Imperial weaponry of comparable size and similar role should never be as good as Eldar weaponry, for example. Possibly the most annoying example, of course, is the Necron Heavy Destroyer, whose incredibly advanced Gauss Cannon is worse than a Lascannon.

Edit: To respond to Drake, I think that the Wraithguard argument has a lot of power here.  If the Americans were in such dire straits that they had to choose between adopting the AK and sacrificing babies in some sort of ritual to repair broken m16s, they'd have gone over to AKs pretty quickly.

As well, that argument really only works for factions of comparable technology levels.  The US was not hugely more advanced than the Soviets.  While ahead, they were no more than a few years ahead.  The Eldar are easily millenia ahead of everyone else bar the Necrons.  While it's probably true that the rate of technological progress slows as you approach the upper end of what there is to know, we should expect to see far more effective technology.  Just look at every other field - the Eldar have far better defensive technology on vehicles, they have far better skimmer technology, far more efficient engines, far more capable aircraft, far more capable targeting systems, far more maneuverable and efficient spacecraft, etc.

And in games stats you don't get a lot of the other little factors. A shuriken cat is an amazingly expensive, high tech weapon. It's a small rail gun that shoots monomolecular disks.
Probably few moving parts, lots of ammunition can be carried, maybe even the only power source is the eldar himself. Yes, it is much more advanced than a simple shotgun, but a shotgun slug will do more damage in a single shot than an m16 or even a mauser. It is simple and mechanical. Few rounds can be carried.

You just can't look at game terms for how "advanced" or powerful something is or should be. There are many other things in play, just like the reason we went with a 5.56 round over a 7.62 round, and sometimes maybe it isn't even the "best" or most "advanced" decision. Wouldn't the US army be running around with the most technologically advanced weapon if we could? So why are we running around with a very very old weapon with dubious reliability and stopping power? Sometimes it isn't just effectiveness that decides the weapon. It is a complete picture that gives us the weapon.

However, I discussed this. Whatever benefits the ShuriCat may have don't mean much to the Eldar next to sheer battlefield effectiveness. The reason the US military doesn't run around with incredibly hi-tech gadgets is that they're not cost-effective. However, I noted that the Eldar had more reason than most others to spend more per individual troop, and it should be noted that the Webway provides the Eldar with the best-protected supply lines in the galaxy. That they don't require extensive facilities for maintenance (Bonesingers) and that they're always a step away from a Craftworld mean that they don't have to be as concerned about finicky weapons, provided they'll work for the duration of a skirmish. The Eldar almost never go in for long battles - they're almost entirely concerned with getting use out of a weapon for the duration of a short battle.

As well, you seem to be assuming that the base level of Eldar technology is equal to that of everyone else - it's not. Yes, the US doesn't equip its troops with the best it possibly could, but what it does equip them with is far superior to what troops had in WW1 or what (perhaps more accurately) they had in the Napoleonic Wars. Yes, the Eldar aren't going to be equipping every Guardian with the equivalent of a Volcano Cannon, but they are going to be equipping them with something quite a bit better than a Bolter.

Posted By Gotchaye on 12/10/2006 1:45 PM
However, I discussed this. Whatever benefits the ShuriCat may have don't mean much to the Eldar next to sheer battlefield effectiveness. The reason the US military doesn't run around with incredibly hi-tech gadgets is that they're not cost-effective. However, I noted that the Eldar had more reason than most others to spend more per individual troop, and it should be noted that the Webway provides the Eldar with the best-protected supply lines in the galaxy. That they don't require extensive facilities for maintenance (Bonesingers) and that they're always a step away from a Craftworld mean that they don't have to be as concerned about finicky weapons, provided they'll work for the duration of a skirmish. The Eldar almost never go in for long battles - they're almost entirely concerned with getting use out of a weapon for the duration of a short battle.

As well, you seem to be assuming that the base level of Eldar technology is equal to that of everyone else - it's not. Yes, the US doesn't equip its troops with the best it possibly could, but what it does equip them with is far superior to what troops had in WW1 or what (perhaps more accurately) they had in the Napoleonic Wars. Yes, the Eldar aren't going to be equipping every Guardian with the equivalent of a Volcano Cannon, but they are going to be equipping them with something quite a bit better than a Bolter.

Unless, for some reason they cannot AFFORD to equip their soldiers for "sheer battlefield effectiveness"...

Dying civilization has multiple ramifications, true?

Everything has a price... What if the shuriken catapult is used *because* it is easy to make and maintain for the bonesingers?  *Because* making a starcannon, a brightlance, or other wargear is SO difficult and time consuming that  to equip a large force would take millions of bonesinger hours - hours that that bonesinger wouldn't be doing that thousands of other tasks required to keep the handful of eldar survivors alive on the stupendously oversized Craftworlds.

This is where i tend to get into arguements with Eldar players... "They are the most advanced race. They should have the best weapons!"  The problem is - they are a DYING advanced race - who may not be able to support the forces they would prefer to have...

Here's an example I like to use. The modern US navy is currently the most powerful navy on the Earth - (argueably)  capable of engaging all the rest of the navies of the world combined and defeating them...  Suppose the much feared nuclear World War 3 occurred  - and most of the cities of the United Staes got nuked. How long WOULD the US navy be able to make war... Here's a hint - maintainance cycles....

The Fall *annihilated* the industrial capacity of the Eldar. Honestly - very little of the existing background indicates they work on anything more than "cottage industry" - where a handful of craftsmen (Bonesingers) create just enough production to maintain existing society, and a handful of other stuff. Their stuff doesn't have planned obsolecense - and the materials they make it from make it last near forever- BUT - it deosn't inidicate they make much NEW stuff....

They may use Shuriken catapults because - heck - that's what they have...  The cost of replacing the Shuricat with a different weapon may be greater than they can afford with their existing production base.

And there are just too many other factors to look at. You can't just look at a game stat and say which is the overall superior weapon. There is much else to factor in, like I have been trying to say. The reason most armies have automatic weapons is because it takes less training. A round per round basis and a Napoleonic era rifle has a much better chance it will kill someone than a 5.56, in the world of theoretics. But that is just what you are talking about here. You are assuming way too much. Superior game stats don't always mean greater technology. You are extrapolating way too much.

And there is no arguement from me. I am an Eldar player. The only thing that I argued about was the last codex and the masses of unprotected guardians running around. That wasn't fluffy to me.

Keichi, that doesn't make sense. Your argument rests on the assumption that the Eldar somehow held on to their military assets after the Fall. When the US' cities get nuked, its navy is largely unaffected in the short term. However, the Craftworlds were already essentially independent entities before the Fall, and the psychic shockwave, while concentrated at the Eye, was uniformly applied to every Eldar in a given Craftworld. Yes, the Fall took out most Eldar production just as it took out most Eldar population, but it also took out most of the Eldar's military might. Unlike the US in your example, they just don't have a massive military to maintain anymore. Craftworlds still have their own forces and production capacities. Relative to their population and military, the Eldar didn't lose any of their industrial capacity. Furthermore, we also know that Eldar production was a highly automated affair, and I believe that older fluff references factories on a Craftworld. If most Eldar production is as automated as it seems, and if the Craftworlds were designed with pre-Fall population in mind, then it follows that the Eldar will actually have more industrial capacity, relative to their population, than they used to. Per capita, they lost no labor and gained an incredible amount of capital. Finally, consider the implications of Spirit Stones for automation - as the Eldar die, they gain what are effectively super-efficient AIs, further increasing the productive capacity per living Eldar. And since their army is made up of living Eldar, their army will also scale with the number of living Eldar, since, unlike your analogy, the military was equally devastated.

Also, as you note, Eldar products don't go out of style. Their ships, vehicles, Titans, and weapons are self-repairing. Whereas human industry has to expend a certain amount of effort keeping existing products in working order, Eldar industry doesn't need to do anything more than replace actual losses and making new things. And, as the fluff is pretty clear that the Eldar are a lot like the Marines in that they suffer very few combat losses, particularly when it comes to Titans and spacecraft, Eldar industry is going to be almost wholly concerned with producing new things.

Finally, consider that it's evident from what they do produce that they're actually fairly happy with what they're giving to their armies. For the material and labor cost of a single starship (and remember how huge and complicated these things are), a sizeable portion of a Craftworld's military could be outfitted with more than bargain basement equipment. Given how often the Eldar fight on the ground relative to fighting in space (they tend to simply use the webway to make quick strikes), this seems like it'd be the obvious course, if it was indeed the case that the Eldar were shorting their ground troops. Secondly, note the quality of Eldar Titans and spacecraft relative to those of other factions. An Eldar Titan is roughly half the volume of an Imperial Titan (or less), but it is of roughly equivalent power and is far more generally capable. An Eldar starship is far less massive than its Imperial equivalent, but is almost invariably faster, better protected, and better armed. If it was true that the Eldar were producing far below their tech level due to a dearth of resources, then we'd expect to see far less effectiveness from their ships and superheavies, especially since it would seem that a willingness to take a small decrease in effectiveness of these larger craft would allow the Eldar to put a lot more effort into infantry-level equipment, and since it's on the infantry level that most Eldar engagements take place.

In short, any argument that holds that the Eldar, while being more advanced, don't have more advanced weaponry has to first explain why it only applies to small scale battles.  When we get into the scales of superheavies, Titans, and starships, the Eldar have far more capable machines than anyone else.

Toreador, I still don't understand what you mean - I can't claim to know nearly as much about guns as you seem to, so perhaps I'm just confused. What are these 'other factors' you talk about? As I understand it, a gun's usefulness can be described with two kinds of information - its effectiveness on the battlefield and its cost (including maintenance). It seems totally irrelevant that a Napoleonic rifle is more deadly on a round by round basis than a modern gun - the modern gun has a much higher rate of fire. However, all of these aspects of effectiveness are included in the abstracted game statline - we have a strength, we have penetration, we have range, we have rate of fire, and we have ease of use. One would expect that likelihood of jamming is included as well - in extreme cases this is handled by the gets hot rule, and is regularly handled by some combination of the ease of use and rate of fire values. As for cost, I believe I've made a convincing case for the Eldar being far less concerned about maintenance requirements than any other faction, and also having much more reason and more ability to 'pay' for the initial production.

And perhaps we should move this to background.

Barring the great shuricat debate, what do people think, should shotguns be S4? Will they be?

Mainly what I am saying Gotchaye is that the pure game stats don't always correctly display the overall effectiveness of a weapon. There are a lot more reasons behind the use of them. Yes, a modern m16 has a greater rate of fire and combat load than a Napoleonic musket, but the Napoleonic musket within it's 200yrd effective range at a single shot would have a greater chance of killing someone outright.

A single shot from a modern M16 and a combat slug round from a shotgun would be about the same as the musket and m16. Very different technology, but the musket is still a very nasty weapon. So what we have here is just that the eldar shoot out a mass of monomelocular stars to achieve the same effect as a primitive, very heavy slug, shotgun. They do it with greater technology and a higher rate of fire. But in game stats, they aren't that much different. You just assume that high tech means better. Overall they do make better weapons. They don't use triggers, they use gravitic propulsion which probably is next to silent and very reliable. It just doesn't matter in the game stats we use.

A Mausuer 98k has a maximum effective range of 500-800 meters depending on source, and m16 is around 400 meters effective. The Mauser also causes more damage and has greater accuracy against wind and foilage. Rate of fire for the 98k is around 15 rpm while the m16 is around 700 - 900rpm, but how often do you have that many rounds on you, hit with them or keep that weapon loaded! But looking at straight stats of the 98k makes it appear to be a damn good weapon. It was built in 1898 vs the 1957 for the m16 which is still used today. But, a lot of the factors that cause an m16 to be used over a 98k, other than ROF wouldn't be seen in the game. That is what I am trying to say. Because in game stats the 98k would sure look like a damn good weapon to use! Longer range, greater damage and penetration vs a high ROF.


I am not sure what shotguns should be. I would much prefer a s3 assault 2 style weapon, to reflect the spread of the shot, while s4 would be explosive slugs and assault 1. Really hard to have something creative for the shotguns under the new quicker play rules.

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 12/10/2006 7:11 PM
Barring the great shuricat debate, what do people think, should shotguns be S4? Will they be?

They've gotta do something.  Shotguns are the worst weapons in the game. 

Well, I guess "firearms" are the worst weapons in the game, but they are specifically supposed to be bad.  Shotguns should be good.

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 12/10/2006 7:11 PM
Barring the great shuricat debate, what do people think, should shotguns be S4? Will they be?

The problem with shotguns is that the SM Codex allows certain units to take them as an alternative to either a bolter or a bolt pistol and CCW, the Witch Hunters Codex allows certain units to take them as an alternative to either a hellgun or a hell pistol and CCW, and the Imperial Guard Codex allows certain units to take them as an alternative to a lasgun or a laspistol and CCW. Given this situation, shotguns are never going to be balanced.

The best option from a game-balance perspective is to just equip each unit with shells that mimic the weapon they're replacing. The best option from a consistency perspective is to give them the least powerful profile, because underpowered options are preferable to overpowered options. Personally, I'd favor throwing consistency to the wind, and giving Marines S4 shotguns. The problem is, I doubt GW is down for that...

Thank you for the clarification, Toreador, but I still don't see what I'm missing. You say that the 'other factors' are ammo capacity, accuracy, or 'keep that weapon loaded', which I assume means that it's difficult to reload and/or needs to be reloaded often. It seems to me that 'accuracy' and 'keeping the weapon loaded' are abstracted into RoF. Shuriken Catapults actually fire quite a few times in a burst, but this is abstracted into two to-hit rolls to represent the inaccuracy of the gun. Reloading is, or should be, also abstracted into RoF. At least, I believe that Missile Launchers and Lascannons have to be reloaded between firings, and I don't see where the game would account for this other than with the low RoF - it just so happens that they also need a good bit of time to cool down between shots. Likewise, I imagine that part of the reason that the Shuripult is only two shots is that its magazine only lasts for a few seconds of solid fire, after which the soldier needs to pop in another. Finally, I've already discussed ammo capacity, and it very much seems like the Eldar could come up with a stronger but still ammo-efficient weapon, and they would also, by my previous arguments, be more willing to use more ammo. As an aside, look at the Bright Lance, the power packs of which last several dozen times longer than the Lascannon's for equivalent output. Scaling down, it seems like they ought to be able to produce an S5+ lasgun-type weapon which would require virtually no ammunition.

Also, you cite some examples of the Shuriken Catapult's superiority. You say that it doesnt use a trigger, but why is this particularly advantageous, and why does it prevent the weapon from being better in more useful ways? You say that it's silent, but, given the short range, whipping sound of the Shurikens flying through the air, and the much quieter operation of a laser, why is this an advantage over other weapons. Also note that a Bolter is quite quiet - the sound is almost purely artificial and is for psychological effect.

shotguns should be S4, then they would be better than bolters. yay shoot twice and then assualt, thats the way it should be.

I've come late to this debate but see no reason why there can't be shotguns at different strengths. That is the reality anyway, have you ever tried to drop a goose with SG shot, or seen the results of a rabbit hit by solid shot?

And as for the comparison with shuricats. We must remember that we are playing a skirmish game. Shuricats may have all the high tech advantages that the eldar can give them but these may have no game effect. For example they may not need repairing for a hundred years where shotguns should go to an armourer yearly. Or they can carry more ammo.

Posted By Gotchaye on 12/10/2006 1:34 PM
If the Americans were in such dire straits that they had to choose between adopting the AK and sacrificing babies in some sort of ritual to repair broken m16s, they'd have gone over to AKs pretty quickly.

I dunno, it depends.  Are we talking American babies or commie babies?

Arent all babies pink lumpenproletariats when born?

Getting back to Shotguns at S4. Considering that bolters are one of the best basic small arms in the game already... Does anyone else think that it is assinine to give Marines access to a "bolter-which-may-be-rapidfired-and-then-followed-up-with-assault-and-to-Tartarus-with-the-AP-value-since-it-is-highly-inconsequential-anyways-against-stuff-that-is-eating-firepower-that-is-less-than-AP4."

Then again, the Imperium has the best stuff and to heck with everyone else.

I think its a bad idea. I'd rather see:

1. Penalty to initiative for unit getting assaulted after getting peppered with shotgun shells
or
2. An extra shot at S3.

Necromunda and Inquisitor have differing Ammo types, why not just say that Marines use Bolt Shells in their shotguns, making them S4 AP5. Witch Hunters could use Hotshot Shells in theirs, making them AP5

Billy - Yeah, but those are Necromunda and Inquisitor.  Last time I checked, you can't JUMP in 40k either.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/11/2006 3:35 AM

Posted By Gotchaye on 12/10/2006 1:34 PM
If the Americans were in such dire straits that they had to choose between adopting the AK and sacrificing babies in some sort of ritual to repair broken m16s, they'd have gone over to AKs pretty quickly.

I dunno, it depends.  Are we talking American babies or commie babies?

I doubt it woould have made a difference either way to the government as long as they were't  their own babies.

Okay, am I wrong, or are shotguns right now Str 3 12" range Assault 1? By making them Str 4 they don't become better than bolters, but fill a different niche.

Okay, on to the Eldar thing. The Fall as long ago, and yet we have these ancient powerful weapons of the Exarchs and Phoenix Lords that have not been reproduced. In fact they are revered as museum pieces and honoured as such. Eldar expeditions seem to search out lost pieces of technology, so there is a good chance they don't exactly create much new anymore, or improve what they have. Shuriken weapons have been around since before the fall, and in all this time have not changed much if at all. So there seems to be a stagnation or adherence to the "old ways". I will also assume that whoever they fought in the past (The Necrons) they were more than adequate weapons at the time. Maybe they didn't need to develop anything better. But it all points to the eldar using an ancient archaic weapon, with little improvement over a vast amount of time. Maybe they could come up with something better, but they just don't. You still assume that just because someone is higher tech than someone else, that they will employ a far superior weapon, when in fact that has little to do with it. It has to do with overall usefulness in the army itself and ease of use to the users. maybe they have come up with other more powerful weapons, but they are too heavy, or the units don't like to use them in battle. Can you imagine trying to convince an aspect warrior to give up it's revered weapon for something different?

And again, you, like I infer things. We make assumptions based off of ourselves. To me a bolter firing mini rockets that explode is noisy. A mini railgun that fires monomolecular stars silent.

A simple ak47 that is based off the first assault rifle ever made in a lot of ways is a far superior weapoon to an m16. Do we use it? No. Do we develop something better? No. We are using a weapon in 2006 that isn't as good as something first designed in 1947. We stagnate.

I've always thought that shotguns should have a special rule: If you roll a 6 to hit, it counts as two hits. It's not particularly realistic to expect a shotgun blast to hit more than two people, but it's possible, and this rule reflects that, while adding a new rules dynamic.



That's really not the case. The core functionality of the rifle, throwing lead around the battlefield, is little changed. In this respect the Kalashnikovs are fine rifles. They reliably throw lead. If that's all that it was about, you'd be correct.

But that's not all it's about. In reality, the infantryman's ability to throw lead is a small portion of his impact on the battlefield. The modern American military finds its strength in combined arms, information exchange, etc. That's why you see the influx of rifles covered with attachment rails. Now you can add on your choice of optics for close quarters, medium range, long range... You can add laser designators to direct smart bombs, night vision gear, cameras to look around corners, etc. etc.

The basic rifle may remain S4AP5... But what if it now includes a Targetter, a Teleport Homer, and ignores Night Fighting rules?

Posted By Toreador on 12/11/2006 10:12 AM
Okay, am I wrong, or are shotguns right now Str 3 12" range Assault 1? By making them Str 4 they don't become better than bolters, but fill a different niche.

I was under the impression that they were S3 12" assault 2, but then again, I never see anyone use them, so its hard to be sure.

Keezus is correct on the stats. In addition, they are AP-.

Posted By keezus on 12/11/2006 12:32 PM

Posted By Toreador on 12/11/2006 10:12 AM
Okay, am I wrong, or are shotguns right now Str 3 12" range Assault 1? By making them Str 4 they don't become better than bolters, but fill a different niche.

I was under the impression that they were S3 12" assault 2, but then again, I never see anyone use them, so its hard to be sure.

I actually liked using shorguns back in the elysian chapter approved article. 10 men dropping in your face with 3 melta guns and 14 shotgun shots at BS4 was kinda cool. Still a suicide unit, but was neat to imagine the carnage.

Actually, most of my models had shotguns. in certain situations, they are quite nasty is droves. I thought that was why they got rid of some of the options elysians had when they made the latest IG dex because even at s3 it was still kind of powerful. Thats an assumption though.

And yes those stats are correct, keezus. S3, 12", assault 2, ap-

I must have been looking at a reference sheet that was wrong. But yes, S3 12" Assault 2.

Yes, but imagine a well made ak47 with those same devices added on....

When it comes down to it, it is still down to the basic soldier and his training and use of the gear. A good soldier can kill with a spork....

I think they would be better at S4 12" Assault 1. Much more than that and you are putting them into the realm of basic weapons and not support, which is where they should be.

Except you are wrong about one thing toreador, an ak47, or even one of the newer ak74ms, is not a better weapons system than the current m16. It is just that both weapons are modeled after the doctrines and tactics of the countries that deployed them

ak47 pros: cheap, loose tolerences makes it very hardy in the field, can be deployed with minimal training
cons: very inaccurate for a battle rifle, true effective range closer to 100 yards than 200 yards

M16 Pros: very accurate for a battle rifle, much easier to control when firing bursts
Cons: even latest version requires care in the field. requires well trained operator.

So you have two rifles, one is good for a country that wants to field millions of pesants blasting away the country side with billions of rounds of ammo, the other good for a country that wants to field a smaller professional force that is a bit more precise in its operations.

Now back to the topic on hand. Shotguns should be so short ranged that generally they are worthless in combat, but they should be absolutly brutal in close combat. You also need a fix that will not make the space marines too overpowered.

shotgun str 4 ap - assault 2 6 inch range. In addition the user may forgo all of their close combat attacts for one str 4 at init 10.