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.

40k has, and for a very long time, has had, a huge gulf between the effectiveness of a 4+sv and a 3+sv. Weapons capable of penetrating 3+sv's usually are usually either anti-tank weapons, ordnance guns, or the like, with a few rare exceptions (that often pay exorbitant points premiums for the privilege). Meanwhile AP4 is handed out with abandon, particularly with ignores cover save weapons. Meanwhile the gulf between a 5+ or 6+sv and a 4+sv is markedly less than between the 4+ and 3+sv aside from the simple variable in save rate, with primarily just small arms (a minority of killing power in most armies) being the only things that really care.

This might not be an issue if costed appropriately, and I understand the point is to make Space Marines appear "special", however 4+sv units have historically paid a very high premium for that save over 5+sv units, primarily for the increased resiliency against small arms fire, while 3+sv units are not proportionally expensive in relation to most 4+sv units, often they are very similar or identical in cost. A good example is basic marine units in the CSM and DA books, they're 13/14pts, while units like Dire Avengers, Banshees, Scouts, etc are similarly priced. For IG units to get Carapace Armour, they often have to pay anywhere from 3-5pts per model for it (increasing the cost of the unit by ~40% in most cases!) IG Stormtroopers are 16ppm for that 4+sv and AP3 on their S3 18" Rapid Fire guns that merely put them on an even footing with a MEQ unit in a 9" or under shooting war in the open and inferior in any other situation. On top of that, most 4+sv units are T3 and most 3+sv units are T4, further adding to the resiliency gap.

Thus, ultimately we have a slew of T3 4+sv units that largely are costed in the same area as most T4 3+sv units, or at a premium over lesser unit far and away higher than that of the much more valuable 3+sv over them, making them not only overcosted relative to the much more resilient but often similiarly costed 3+sv units, but much more expensive and less capable point for point than their 5+sv alternatives in most cases. Thus, 4+sv infantry units end up being some of the most difficult to use and least cost efficient units in the game despite many of them being amongst the most interesting in the 40k universe, and largely ignored between the continual crush of the downcosting of the Space Marine and the low cost of horde units that can often accomplish the same job as well or better given the same number of points to work with.


Thoughts?

EDIT: TL;DR 4+sv units are generally costed closer to 3+sv unit standards but perform closer to 5+sv unit standards, and thus are disproportionately ineffective/fragile/not optimal/etc in the 40k metagame relative to other units due to the extensive overvaluing of the 4+ armor save.

I generally agree with you.

However, there is something to be said about the internal balance of the books these units are found in, and how cheap/expensive other types of units are. Now, I go on at length analyzing the balance of each codex (internally and externally), but it wouldn't really end with much, other than stating that GW/40K has always been a weirdly balanced game primarily because of marines being 50% of the books, despite being 0.000000000001% of the galactic combat forces.

I like to think I have a good handle on game balance, but changing the game to make this gulf less significant would require a rather significant overhaul.

40k is a strange game, rules-wise. I don't even think it knows what it wants to be most of the time.

I completely agree with Vaktathi. For the cost you have to pay for that +4, the only benefit you get is that you're not going to get mowed down by bolter fire, but no one really cares about the basic troop weapon and most anti-horde, as Vak already pointed out, is already largely AP4 or better. That same points I used to buy 'Eavy Armor for nobz i could have used for cybork or a painboy and it would actually be useful.

Infantry Anti-MEQ units being completely useless is a topic in it's own right

I think a lot of the issue has to do more with the AP system. You either completely negate a level of armor and everything below it, or they take a normal save. Reducing opponents saves by various amounts (I believe an older edition had this) seems like it would work better. It would be a big overhaul though and I can put up with my fire warriors and pathfinders essentially getting the same saves. (Cover )

3+ save doesn't really do much, and cover is free.

4+ may be worse than 5+ but 3+ is by far the worst in terms of the price you pay for how easily it is removed from the table by plasma and Heldrakes.

Being cheap is much more important than being "good" because weight of fire can bring down even terminators.

I always thought save and AP should be completely separate. For example, ork Armor is incredibly thick and sturdy, I have no idea how even an autocannon round could get through it, (often 6+ inches of solid metal) but gives an awful save because it covers very little of their body. Gaunts, however, have most of their bodies covered by a thin and weak shell. So why do they both have the same 6+?
I realize this would require a major overhaul, but I feel like separating AP from save would be a good thing.

Personally, I think you pay enough of a points premium for 3+ armor that it balances out; the 4+ models are, on the balance, much cheaper. I play Marines and Tau, so I feel like I've got a little bit of experience with both. Still, if I was primarily/solely a player of 4+ armies, I could definitely see getting frustrated over this. (I'd probably overreact and make my next army Draigowing. )

You have to include elements of the imagination.

For instance... Imagine a unit of marines shooting into a unit of gaunts.

When rolling to hit, you are not just seeing the accuracy of the marines but alos the ability of the gaunts to dodge and take cover.

When rolling to wound it's not just the destruction caused by the bolts but also the dud shells and glancing strikes.

The saves... which in this case there are none... represent the bolts rounds exploding and the bodies falling.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Being cheap is much more important than being "good" because weight of fire can bring down even terminators.

This, pretty much. Armies with 4+ saves generally have thing that make up for it. Seen all the Tau QQ threads recently? All their scoring units have crappy saves but somehow that never gets mentioned, only how good their big guns are.

Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:3+ save doesn't really do much, and cover is free.

4+ may be worse than 5+ but 3+ is by far the worst in terms of the price you pay for how easily it is removed from the table by plasma and Heldrakes.

Plasma is (relatively) limited in quantity and range and is dangerous to the user (and again, many 4+sv units cost as much or nearly so as many 3+sv units are are killed just as easily by otherwise contemptible weapons like krak grenades), Heldrakes exist in one army and are widely renowned as broken for a variety of reasons.

Being cheap is much more important than being "good" because weight of fire can bring down even terminators.

Yes, but that's the problem, most 4+sv units aren't particularly cheap. Dire Avengers and Scouts cost as much as Chaos Space Marines, IG Stormtroopers cost as much as kitted Chaos Space Marines and can only stand toe to toe with them if fighting a rapid fire battle in the open at 9" or less or 12.00001-18" and are otherwise inferior in all respects. IG Carapace Vets are only 3ppm cheaper than a Chaos Space Marine (the same premium they pay over normal Vets for that carapace), etc.

Jimsolo wrote:Personally, I think you pay enough of a points premium for 3+ armor that it balances out; the 4+ models are, on the balance, much cheaper.

Not really, that's the problem, as above. They're either roughly the same cost, or only marginally cheaper in most cases.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Being cheap is much more important than being "good" because weight of fire can bring down even terminators.

This, pretty much. Armies with 4+ saves generally have thing that make up for it. Seen all the Tau QQ threads recently? All their scoring units have crappy saves but somehow that never gets mentioned, only how good their big guns are.

Some do, Tau in particular, but they're also amongst the best 4+sv units in the game, they have long range, powerful guns that do not require them to close range and are under the 10ppm barrier. Carapace Vets however are usually seen as a waste, they cost more than Fire Warriors even with S3 shorter range guns, and that's before any upgrade weapons. One will notice with Eldar that it's not the 4+sv units that people tend to take lots of, and when they do, it's in their invinci-skimmer battle transports.

I'm not sure why you're particularly disgruntled when one of the books in your example (Imperial Guard) is not only extremely old, but still competitive despite this, and has the option to forego "expensive" 4+ for very cheap 5+. Being upset that you cannot play a "fluffy" 4+ well because you don't want to play your good 5+ is not nearly as bad as being FORCED to overpay for 3+.

And CSM have the lowest cost of any 3+ save so that's not really a good argument. You should see how expensive C:SM and C:BA units are.

Further, 3+ units are designed to do the work of 2, or even 3 models compared to a cheaper model, but the 3+ is easily negated so you are cutting huge swaths out of an already limited number of models. Look at how MEQ can take plasma. One plasma gun and one plasma cannon at 10 for C:SM, and one plasma at 5 for DA. IG Veterans get 3 plasma per 10. You can kill an entire squad of 3+ in one volley.

I'm not dismissing your concerns, but from someone on the lower end of the spectrum of competitiveness, is it more that your stuff isn't good enough, or is it that the stuff that's better than your stuff is too good?

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
I'm not sure why you're particularly disgruntled when one of the books in your example (Imperial Guard) is not only extremely old, but still competitive despite this, and has the option to forego "expensive" 4+ for very cheap 5+. Being upset that you cannot play a "fluffy" 4+ well because you don't want to play your good 5+ is not nearly as bad as being FORCED to overpay for 3+.

I'm not talking about just IG, that just happens to be my forum Avatar, I also have CSM's in as much abundance as I have IG, and then Eldar, Tau, Sisters of Battle, Tyranids and Grey Knights.

And who overpays for 3+ saves?

And CSM have the lowest cost of any 3+ save so that's not really a good argument.

DA tac's are 1pt more with ATSKNF and Combat Tactics, I'd say it's a pretty good trend for 6E

You should see how expensive C:SM and C:BA units are.

Which will likely get updated to the new standard above.

Further, 3+ units are designed to do the work of 2, or even 3 models compared to a cheaper model

Except that 4+sv units aren't 1/2 or 1/3rd the cost, at best they're 2/3rds the cost and often just as much as those 3+sv units

but the 3+ is easily negated

By AT weapons, Ordnance and power weapons, that's not generally considered "easily negated". Plasma weapons are pretty much the only common anti-infantry weapon that will negate 3+sv's, and they're the most expensive special weapon option and are dangerous to the user as well.

so you are cutting huge swaths out of an already limited number of models. Look at how MEQ can take plasma. One plasma gun and one plasma cannon at 10 for C:SM

Don't forget they pay for the weapons as part of their base unit cost.

and one plasma at 5 for DA. IG Veterans get 3 plasma per 10. You can kill an entire squad of 3+ in one volley.

You can if its a small squad at close range, but that's also at risk to themselves, you're not going to annihilate a full squad of 3+sv models like that, meanwhile a similar or only very moderately cheaper 4+sv squad like Dire Avengers can typically be removed much easier.

I'm not dismissing your concerns, but from someone on the lower end of the spectrum of competitiveness, is it more that your stuff isn't good enough, or is it that the stuff that's better than your stuff is too good?

Again, I'm not addressing this from an IG perspective, I've repeatedly mentioned non-IG units.

Tau are the only ones that actually have enough plasma to cause an issue to MEQs, everyone else uses their few plasmas (and dangerous plasmas, mind you) to take out 2+ units or high toughness units. Tau dont have gets hot and they have the numbers to just go "That marine ball...its dead" and not worry about wasting their precious plasma shots.

Helldrakes are one codex....you kinda cant justify the balance of a 3+ compared to 4+ because of a single codex single model. Yes you can ally them in, but personally ive never seen anyone do that theyre usually CSM with allies not vice versa.

I totally agree with the OP, the cost is a little too close between 3/4+ saves. I love it when people argue its not that big a difference between a 3 and a 4 on the die...i just grab a bunch of dice, throw them, and go "See? 3+ saves means i lost 5 less units that throw. It matters"

I also play orks and 4+ armor i literally ignore. It comes with bikes whether i want it or not so its nice if something ignores cover but doesnt pen me, but usually they get both. A group of 'Ard Nobz goes from 6pts a model to 10pts a model if you take the 4+ armor, and except for surviving a BW explosion it wont ever help to justify the cost.

Theres just too much autocannon or other long range S7 AP4 type stuff out there, and most of it has a high volume of fire (missilesides or lootas anyone? hehehehe)

At least Tau get armor saves (not to mention giant battlesuits, Front Armor 13, 30-72" range on their guns). Nobody brought up Dark Eldar Wych bikinis being negated by a medium-sized rock. Not that I'm complaining, I think it leads to more creative strategy and play on the part of the DE.

If there was an overhaul, it would probably end up unbalancing things further. 4th edition D&D was the first major overhaul I can think of (changing how the game worked to better balance classes and races) and it was *terrible*. Worst edition of the game to date. But now I'm ranting about D&D on a 40k forum. This is why I don't have a girlfriend.

 EmbracetheChaos wrote:
4th edition D&D was the first major overhaul I can think of (changing how the game worked to better balance classes and races) and it was *terrible*.

Actually, I'd say it was pretty good. Just too hack-n-slashy for my taste.

As for the difference between 4 and 3... yeah, I can see where you're coming from. But I hav to ask, how many facitons actually HAVE 4+ by default, IE before upgrades?

I've actually ran into not a whole lot of massed AP4. The times that I do have my 4+ armor save screwed when playing Orks tend to be AP3 or better (Powerfists, rail rifles, stuff like that). Of course, 85% of the time it's my Nob Bikers who get that sort of attention and have 4+ cover anyway.

Yes, but that's the problem, most 4+sv units aren't particularly cheap. Dire Avengers

The Dire Avengers that get shoot/run, 18" assault rending, doesn't need to pay for a sarge if they don't want to, fleet, counter-attack, with a cheaper exarch then CSM?

I don't really agree. I would have before the 5th edition codices, probably.

Fire Warriors are pretty good; that's been covered.

New Eldar are generally decent, even with 4+ saves. Dire Avengers are very workable. Swooping Hawks aren't seen as terrible anymore. It's really just Banshees that stink. The 4+ save keeps them much safer from mobile guns, where AP5 is common, and Battle Focus keeps them safe from AP4.

I don't know much about IG. Maybe 4+ Guard are overpriced. But I don't think this is a game-wide issue in the way it used to be.

This is especially true recently, I think. My Eldar have a really hard time with lots of 4+ saves. Shurikens cut right through 5+ saves, and psuedo-rending makes them pretty good against T4 3+, but they struggle to perform cost-effectively against T3 4+. Some of the strength in a Scatter Laser is wasted, and they get a decent save against the Serpent Shield even though it ignores cover. Tau have SMS which is AP5 /and/ Ignores Cover, and Markerlights plus Fire Warriors are a nasty combination for anything with a 5+ save.

Maybe the Eldar just have a lot less AP4 than other codices, and that's what I'm noticing. Looking at the reference sheet, the only ranged AP4 weapon someone might actually take is a plasma grenade. The only others are a terrible Fire Dragon Exarch weapon and the absurdly expensive Eldar missile launcher (Vibrocannons don't count because they're almost never AP4). Oh, and there's a heavy flamer Warlock power which you get 1/6 of the time and which is probably worse than Conceal unless you intend to use the blessing version of the power that doesn't do any damage to the enemy.

I do miss my power armor when i play my tau. 4+ armor doesnt help me. Quite a bit of flame templates have ap4. But i also have a way to deal with 4+ armor in alot of ways, missle spam. My 1850 list can put out, if not dead, 24 ap4 shots at 36 in range, and with ignore cover.

With a markerlight boost (assuming it can be markerlighted?) that sounds brutal.

pantsonhead wrote:
I don't really agree. I would have before the 5th edition codices, probably.

This may be a fair point that it is getting better.

Maybe the Eldar just have a lot less AP4 than other codices, and that's what I'm noticing. Looking at the reference sheet, the only ranged AP4 weapon someone might actually take is a plasma grenade. The only others are a terrible Fire Dragon Exarch weapon and the absurdly expensive Eldar missile launcher (Vibrocannons don't count because they're almost never AP4). Oh, and there's a heavy flamer Warlock power which you get 1/6 of the time and which is probably worse than Conceal unless you intend to use the blessing version of the power that doesn't do any damage to the enemy.

Yeah, Eldar don't have much AP4 (Eldar in particular seem to jump from AP5 to AP2 a lot), but Imperial Armies and Necrons bring it in Droves, and Tyranids have a decent amount.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Yes, but that's the problem, most 4+sv units aren't particularly cheap. Dire Avengers

The Dire Avengers that get shoot/run, 18" assault rending, doesn't need to pay for a sarge if they don't want to, fleet, counter-attack, with a cheaper exarch then CSM?

They've got watered down rending (not that I think they should have full Rending or that Bladestorm is a bad ability, but there's a difference), while Counterattack on S3 T3 A1 models isn't exactly much to write home about, and the Exarch doesn't bring an Ld bonus to the unit. The useful ability in there is the ability to shoot and run and take advantage of Fleet. In general they require a lot more finesse to use and cannot be used against as many targets with the same degree of effectiveness for the same investment.

Have to admit, i dont think theres a way to "fix" the 4+ problem without doing an overhaul on weapons and model prices. If say all we did was cut down the number of long range ap4 shots or make them ap5 and same number of shots, i could see some races being pretty damn crazy suddenly. Making it cheaper would be the easiest, but like i said that would require a massive multi-codex repricing and i doubt GW will do that lol

I think you're way understating Sv4+ is the problem.

Firstly, I think it's easy to overstate weapons that are uniquely threatening to them. Thinking of Ap4 weapons, I can only think of a few properly good weapons against them, while others are VERY situational. Honestly, you should see heavy flamers coming at you.

Meanwhile, anything that's good against Sv3+ is also good against Sv4+, but is much cheaper (helldrakes aren't as good against Sv4+ armies for this reason), and they are TWICE as durable against models that have Ap5. Really, the question isn't "why isn't a firewarrior a third as expensive as a space marine?" it's "why aren't carapace armored vets twice as expensive as regular ones?"

And you get to use that Sv advantage in a LOT of places. For example, you get to make a save against bolters and flamers. You get a 50% boost in durability in close combat against chainswords. Unlike Sv5+ units, you aren't forced to spend all of your time in cover, never being able to leave without fear of instant slaughter, and that can have a pretty big strategic impact.

Sv4+ is much, much better than Sv5+. When you understand that, then the fact that Sv3+ is much better than Sv4+ just fits the trend, rather than being some sort of abberation.

 Ailaros wrote:
I think you're way understating Sv4+ is the problem.

Firstly, I think it's easy to overstate weapons that are uniquely threatening to them. Thinking of Ap4 weapons, I can only think of a few properly good weapons against them, while others are VERY situational. Honestly, you should see heavy flamers coming at you.[

Yes and no, there's many Deep Striking/outflanking/fast moving heavy flamer options or armies that can take them in sufficient quantity that it's impossible to stop them all. Often you can, but not always.

Meanwhile, anything that's good against Sv3+ is also good against Sv4+, but is much cheaper (helldrakes aren't as good against Sv4+ armies for this reason)

Except when said 4+sv units are about as much as the 3+sv units they're also good at toasting

and they are TWICE as durable against models that have Ap5.

Yes, if engaged in the open. True, but situational.

Really, the question isn't "why isn't a firewarrior a third as expensive as a space marine?" it's "why aren't carapace armored vets twice as expensive as regular ones?"

Because they aren't delivering twice the value? They are only twice as survivable (not the same as being twice as valuable and thus being worth twice the points0 when being shot at *specifically* with AP5 weapons and in the open outside of cover. Does that happen? Of course. Will it be the situation a majority of the time? Not necessarily. If they're shot at with AP6 or AP- weapons, or taking basic CC hits, the benefit, while tangible, isn't anywhere near as huge.

And you get to use that Sv advantage in a LOT of places. For example, you get to make a save against bolters and flamers.

Flamers are of course always true, but cover saves are very common, especially with aegis lines being purchaseable, and when cover comes into play there's often a minimal difference or no difference.

You get a 50% boost in durability in close combat against chainswords. Unlike Sv5+ units, you aren't forced to spend all of your time in cover, never being able to leave without fear of instant slaughter, and that can have a pretty big strategic impact.

This latter point is one I'll grant, and that can be useful, however often the investment in the 4+sv would have bought you several more 5+sv units (and/or an aegis line as well) which often is more useful.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Have to admit, i dont think theres a way to "fix" the 4+ problem without doing an overhaul on weapons and model prices. If say all we did was cut down the number of long range ap4 shots or make them ap5 and same number of shots, i could see some races being pretty damn crazy suddenly. Making it cheaper would be the easiest, but like i said that would require a massive multi-codex repricing and i doubt GW will do that lol

Another issue that could be addressed is the situation of AP4 being the fallback on many weapons GW wants to make powerful at penetrating armor but not personal armor. Things like Hades Autocannons, Rupture Cannons, or Manticores can absolutely shred tanks, but aren't terribly much more effective against a 3+sv infantry model than a heavy bolter aside from the fact that they wound on a 2 instead of a 3. Not really sure what the alternative could be, but it just seems odd to have such heavy AT guns be so effective against tanks and medium infantry yet so ineffective against MEQ's.

Vaktathi wrote: there's many Deep Striking/outflanking/fast moving heavy flamer options or armies that can take them in sufficient quantity that it's impossible to stop them all.

Well, and even if you can't completely stop them (though you sure can cut down on the damage with proper displacement), you sort of don't need to. When you straddle the line between marines and hordes, you need to straddle the line with your thinking about them as well. In this case, you've got to be able to draw from the "they're cheaper than marines, thus more expendable" nature of horde armies here.

A nightmare (read: avoidable) scenario of a helldrake nailing 6 longfangs is a disaster. A hellhound killing 6 firewarriors or scouts is much less so.

Vaktathi wrote: when being shot at *specifically* with AP5 weapons and in the open outside of cover. Does that happen? Of course. Will it be the situation a majority of the time? Not necessarily.

Well, and that's part of my point. You never see Sv5+ out in the open because it's complete suicide. The advantage of Sv4+ is that you CAN go out in the open, because it isn't.

Plus, there are Ap6 and Ap- weapons out there wherein the Sv4+ is still 50% better. Yes, close combat, but also against vehicle explosions (especially, but not limited to, if you're in the vehicle while they're exploding) certain psychic powers, soulblaze, etc.

And for how easy it is to say "look how much Ap4 there is", it's way easier to say "look how much Ap5 there is".

Vaktathi wrote:Flamers are of course always true, but cover saves are very common, especially with aegis lines being purchaseable, and when cover comes into play there's often a minimal difference or no difference.

Yes, there are times when a cover save is an equalizer, regardless of Sv, but even ignoring for a moment the above argument of not NEEDING cover is better than needing cover, that argument then cuts both ways. After all, what's the point of having Sv3+ armor when both marines and guardsmen get a 2+ cover save behind an aegis, but a guardsmen gets it for a fraction of the price?

Why don't we all just play Sv5+ armies? Why don't we all just play cultists or ork boys? In the end, though, the existence of ADLs doesn't totally negate having a Sv, nor does it having a better Sv than other units.

To be fair, most of the units you use for comparisons pay for other things than the 4+ as well. Stormtroopers pay for their Operations and AP3, Banshees pay for Power Swords, Fleet and Banshee Masks, Dire Avengers pay for pseudo-rending, Battle Focus and Fleet. The reason 'Ard Boyz and Carapace Vets aren't common is because the offensive output of the models aren't good enough to bother protecting with Carapace, and even then I've still seen people do well with Carapace Vet lists. The fact that they don't have models outside Kasrkin and Inquisitorial Stormtroopers doesn't exactly help, either.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair, most of the units you use for comparisons pay for other things than the 4+ as well. Stormtroopers pay for their Operations and AP3, Banshees pay for Power Swords, Fleet and Banshee Masks, Dire Avengers pay for pseudo-rending, Battle Focus and Fleet. The reason 'Ard Boyz and Carapace Vets aren't common is because the offensive output of the models aren't good enough to bother protecting with Carapace, and even then I've still seen people do well with Carapace Vet lists. The fact that they don't have models outside Kasrkin and Inquisitorial Stormtroopers doesn't exactly help, either.

Exactly. You don't pay for just one aspect of a model. You pay for the whole. Looking at things in a vacuum is a sure way to see only what you want to. Sure, marines have a 3+ save, but what happens when those dire avengers get within 12" roll some sixes, and then run back in to cover? Now you've ignored that expensive 3+ save and got to reposition yourself. When the Marines fire their bolters at you, you get your 4+ save no matter what.

Bolters kinda suck. The units with 4+ saves are usually way better armed or have better special rules. (example, fire warrior guns are much better then bolters, have a 4+ save and still cheaper). In terms of eldar codices with 4+ usually those units have a specific role and do it quite well. Space marines pay for their armour and they shal lno no fear and thats about it, (i mean honestly a 6 point kroot runs the same gun as them with the exception of ap 6 to 5). All those other 4+ are paying for a bunch of neat weapons and special rules.

 Ozomoto wrote:
Bolters kinda suck.

Wait what no.

No. Just ... no.

I suspect if you think bolters suck you haven't played a non-Astartes army very much... boltguns are very good for what you pay for them. Hell, the only reason lasguns ever work is because you often have five times as many lasguns as you would boltguns-- you NEED the numbers to make them work. Boltguns don't need such massive numbers, especially as most armies that have them tend to have better BS anyway.

Bah, gauss flayers are better