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.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 greatbigtree wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Formosa wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start over.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I'm not asking for sympathy.

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

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

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

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

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start over.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I'm not asking for sympathy.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get it?

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

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

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

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

I edited it.

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

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

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

Get it?

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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

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

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

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darsath wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hell to the feth NO!!!

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

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

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

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

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

But steering back towards the topic of bolters...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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