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.

Yeah, monoliths were great back then. Not these days though.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:stop it with suggestions to increase Bolters (and all types of marines) power for that matter, the game adapts to them permanently due to the (C)SM baseline population being the most common and played factions by miles, every change to them WILL have consequences for other factions and actively further facilitates the armsrace / powercreep that right now and since late 5th made this game often horrific to play with certain factions.

Its the same issue as to why now suddendly every stupid baseline infantry weapon has some form of AP, including Marines, especially other marines, because GW couldn't let good enough be good (and needed to sell you your army again this time with more specialists and no options) and HAD to throw out marines 2.0 sorry, primaris, and look where that got us.
And when primaris didn't cut it anymore, well, throw out marine 2.0 and their doctrines and supplements out and the reaction to that was more powercreep and more and more and more.

IF you really want to "Fix" the bloody boltgun then its time to scale far back, drop 2w marines of anykind, drop AP-1 boltrifles (indeed just throw out all the primaris boltweapons period) and by extentsion do the same for all the other factions. It would've been good enough for marines with the new AP system, because it would've disolved the AP3 or better or bust syndrome that pre8th 40k had.

and as an aside, giving ork shootas assault back is not a buff, it's what it always has been and should've been.

I get what you're saying, but disagree.

First of all, basic Marine boltguns don't have AP without doctrines. Secondly, the changes you're suggesting would move the opposite direction to representing Marines lore-accurately on the tabletop... which is a core driver for many people who want to see that. Make them more powerful, rebalance costs. Let the game adapt (like it has to for any major change). At least they've corrected model proportions, even if the in-universe/in-game implementation is a little forced.

I agree though that all the different super-speshul bolt variants should be consolidated.

And as an aside, I really don't get why people are so angry about that bloody shoota profile. "Oh you improved it, you're the worst..."

1. Basic boltguns got the AP in the turn they matter. its entirely irrelevant that there is no -1 on the datasheet, when they have it for the turn it matters. NVM primaris boltguns which are basically AP - Inflation personified.

2. Lore accurate representation of marines is further not something you desire because in that they range from complete fanfictionwankery to complete imbeciles and everything and everyone inbetween.

3. Further if the lore would be accurate, then more people should be playing guard / traitorguard and orks rather than marines, yet these factions nowadays (beyond orks) are either shadows of their former self population wise due to GW space marine favouritism or basically shot in the head behind the Legends shed. You don't resolve that issue by adding yet more GW favouritism ontop of an already bloated range and faction. NVM that your suggestion would curbstomp balance even more because as i already have proven, when said faction has an issue it automatically gets a powerspike, which in turn leads to other factions being also spiked due to being forced to keep up because the GAME else wouldn't function for those factions, nvm that you also then are forced with those other factions to skew AGAINST marines anyway so marines feel then too weak again and the cycle continues. Your suggestion just worsens that situation even more, and for the record, remember after marines 2.0 and supplements? yeah, marine vs marine games weren't excactly well recieved and the local and seemingly universal population of the game plumeted.

4. On the case of the Bolters, especially primaris BS bolters, there are now more Bolters in the SM codex than f.e. GSC has weapons. This is part of the cycle above and a symptom. You don't fight symptoms longterm to increase game health, you fight the pathogenesis.

5.The shoota suggestion is out of an ork perspective an slight reversal of a nerf / sidegrade to the current bad shoota ontop of an already bad body. That is why people are mad at you for suggesting something like that, because it would even more curb the effectiveness of ork shooting , especially against the most prevalent army baseline stat in the game. If IG and Traitorguard and other orks would be the majority of the playerbase THEN it would actually be a decentish sugestion, and even then it would be questionable. Just as T5 ork boys is questionable due to a multitude of reasons (toughness,lorewise aswell as inevitably balance wise) as a bandaid reaction to increased lethality and durability of many factions.

 vipoid wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
On the subject of building for GeQ, I do like how, because me and my friends are trying WHFB 6th, we don't really have the issue of needing to tailor our armies for meta, high armor picks, so everything feels right. Of course the Chosen Chaos Knights feel durable, they're 2+ saves and the overwhelming majority of the weapons on the field have very little to no AP. My Stromvermin might not be insanely durable, but having a shield in case I need to survive a charge is super useful. If everyone focused their lists towards fighting Chaos Warriors, my Stormvermin would feel paper thin, but my hordes would still rule. If everyone focused on killing hordes, my hordes would fall fast, but my Stormvermin wouldn't break so easily, and Chaos Warriors would be extremely durable.

If you don't mind me asking, why 6th edition?

(I ask because 8th was the only edition of WHFB I ever played, so I've little knowledge of how prior editions differed.)

It's basically the equivalent of 3rd edition of 40k.

I'm also revamping 6th, by far the best edition of WHFB. One of its best feature is the reasonably small rosters (with 30-40 datasheets) with only a couple of named characters, who are all overcosted and listed at the end of the book. 7th and 8th added tons of named characters intead, like 10+ per codex. Yes, I hate named characters .

 vipoid wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
On the subject of building for GeQ, I do like how, because me and my friends are trying WHFB 6th, we don't really have the issue of needing to tailor our armies for meta, high armor picks, so everything feels right. Of course the Chosen Chaos Knights feel durable, they're 2+ saves and the overwhelming majority of the weapons on the field have very little to no AP. My Stromvermin might not be insanely durable, but having a shield in case I need to survive a charge is super useful. If everyone focused their lists towards fighting Chaos Warriors, my Stormvermin would feel paper thin, but my hordes would still rule. If everyone focused on killing hordes, my hordes would fall fast, but my Stormvermin wouldn't break so easily, and Chaos Warriors would be extremely durable.

If you don't mind me asking, why 6th edition?

(I ask because 8th was the only edition of WHFB I ever played, so I've little knowledge of how prior editions differed.)

There is a channel on Youtube covering 6th, you could try throwing your questions their way, of course I don't remember the username at the moment. Magic was less strong and there were no hordes. Initiative was a really big deal because models were killed from the front and the guys in the back had to wait to step up until after attacks were made. Units were not stubborn even if they had ranks, so a couple of chariots could charge into a unit, kill 8 dudes and run over the entire unit without taking a single hit. The core requirements were smaller, so instead of having 40 expensive Saurus you had 30 cheap Skinks. 8th removed guess ranges. Movement was also more restrictive in prior editions, making it easier to set up side and rear charges which were also more devastating for various reasons.

In 7th spears allowed more than one attack. 7th made initiative less important because casualties were removed from the rear. Being an Initiative 1 Saurus spearman with 2 attacks was significantly better in 7th than in 6th. The 7th edition army books seemed less externally balanced than 5th-6th edition army books.

Looks like marines are sitting around 45% winrate after the Armour of Contempt buff. That's being brought down by generic Space Marines, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Salamanders, and Ultramarines. Which are basically all 40% or under.

Shows that these chapters in particular might need a buff. The others are doing better. Still though it's early days.

Jarms48 wrote:
Looks like marines are sitting around 45% winrate after the Armour of Contempt buff. That's being brought down by generic Space Marines, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Salamanders, and Ultramarines. Which are basically all 40% or under.

Shows that these chapters in particular might need a buff. The others are doing better. Still though it's early days.

We have 1 weekend of data so far, and some of it very well could be using Pre - buff armies.

I'll point out though that Grey Knights just took a huge jump in top 8 placings this weekend. So I think its more likely than not that this buff is going to be very influential.

Very much so, and to imagine how big the change is, one has to remember that a large chunk of the GK army doesn't even get access to AoC. And the change is still very much felt in how resililent certain units have become. Paladins or Draigo who don't have stormshields got a huge buff from the change.

JNAProductions wrote:The issue is that a MEQ is the baseline model.

They might be, in lore, so rare as to be never seen by your average imperial soldier, but in the real world, they're the most common army.

If other armies got similar support, that might not be the case, but right now, building with GEQ in mind, for instance, instead of MEQ is a recipe for losing most games.

TheBestBucketHead wrote:On the subject of building for GeQ, I do like how, because me and my friends are trying WHFB 6th, we don't really have the issue of needing to tailor our armies for meta, high armor picks, so everything feels right. Of course the Chosen Chaos Knights feel durable, they're 2+ saves and the overwhelming majority of the weapons on the field have very little to no AP. My Stromvermin might not be insanely durable, but having a shield in case I need to survive a charge is super useful. If everyone focused their lists towards fighting Chaos Warriors, my Stormvermin would feel paper thin, but my hordes would still rule. If everyone focused on killing hordes, my hordes would fall fast, but my Stormvermin wouldn't break so easily, and Chaos Warriors would be extremely durable.

Yeah, the huge saturation of Marines on the tabletop (and in the lore) kinda ruins them for me tbh. Part of me wishes Astartes (plain, simple Astartes infantry) were just an elite choice for Guard... similar to your Chosen in that analogy, with equivalent units from a few special chapters (like Grey Knights and Deathwatch) for other Imperial factions (e.g Inquisition).

I hate it when games or other forms of entertainment keep getting more and more desperate for new content, and end up resorting to irritating gimmicks. Lets include 8 types of bolter! 5 types of mech! 84 distinct chapters! 5318 types of Primaris Lieutenant! And some dual-wielding, up-armoured hover-Marines, because the other ones weren't cool enough!

'Primaris' shouldn't even have been a thing IMO. GW should have just released truescale upgrade kits to convert existing models. Still would have sold a ton of overpriced plastic to all the SM players. Now we have Primaris units duplicating Firstborn units in pretty much every role except for jump assault.

Tyel wrote:You could give bolters Ap-1. They would most likely remain inefficient and not be taken. Like Guardians and Fire Warriors today. Skitarii wouldn't be attractive without the stupid AoR bonuses.

Well it's a bit hard not to take bolt weapons in an army given the Troop options available.

And I think we could go beyond just AP1. E.g. bolt weapons being Damage 2 (or even Damage D3), as discussed earlier in the thread.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah 3rd ed immortals and destroyers were great. It's true that necrons did struggle against high armour saves and monsters, but they were highly effective against vehicles and had some effective short ranged fire power.

I still vividly remember my brother's 4th Ed. (I think?...) Scarabs wrecking my new Baneblade in its first game. Fun times.

Not Online!!! wrote:1. Basic boltguns got the AP in the turn they matter. its entirely irrelevant that there is no -1 on the datasheet, when they have it for the turn it matters. NVM primaris boltguns which are basically AP - Inflation personified.

I know, but the AP1 suggestion was coupled with:
- Getting rid of doctrinal AP buffs (that make very little sense).
- Consolidating some or all the wanky bolter/bolt rifle/heavy bolt rifle profiles into fewer (or even one) profiles.

Not Online!!! wrote:2. Lore accurate representation of marines is further not something you desire because in that they range from complete fanfictionwankery to complete imbeciles and everything and everyone inbetween.

I get what you're saying, but the general portrayal in the lore is that Marines are far tougher and deadlier than they are on the tabletop atm.

Lemme pose a question to the board. Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?

Not Online!!! wrote:3. Further if the lore would be accurate, then more people should be playing guard / traitorguard and orks rather than marines, yet these factions nowadays (beyond orks) are either shadows of their former self population wise due to GW space marine favouritism or basically shot in the head behind the Legends shed. You don't resolve that issue by adding yet more GW favouritism ontop of an already bloated range and faction. NVM that your suggestion would curbstomp balance even more because as i already have proven, when said faction has an issue it automatically gets a powerspike, which in turn leads to other factions being also spiked due to being forced to keep up because the GAME else wouldn't function for those factions, nvm that you also then are forced with those other factions to skew AGAINST marines anyway so marines feel then too weak again and the cycle continues. Your suggestion just worsens that situation even more, and for the record, remember after marines 2.0 and supplements? yeah, marine vs marine games weren't excactly well recieved and the local and seemingly universal population of the game plumeted.

Hey, I did my part by moving to Guard. Where's my power spike?

And in general, I agree. What I don't agree with is that a balance adjustment inevitably equals a power spike. Or that making bolters more powerful (if you gave them Damage 2 or Damage D3, then mostly against other MEQs) would be disastrous for the game's balance.

Not Online!!! wrote:4. On the case of the Bolters, especially primaris BS bolters, there are now more Bolters in the SM codex than f.e. GSC has weapons. This is part of the cycle above and a symptom. You don't fight symptoms longterm to increase game health, you fight the pathogenesis.

Yup, I agree. Way too much special sauce. I'm not sure it's entirely a symptom of poor balance... mainly the attempt to introduce Primaris and make them stand out. Which is kind of irritating in its own right.

Not Online!!! wrote:5.The shoota suggestion is out of an ork perspective an slight reversal of a nerf / sidegrade to the current bad shoota ontop of an already bad body. That is why people are mad at you for suggesting something like that, because it would even more curb the effectiveness of ork shooting , especially against the most prevalent army baseline stat in the game. If IG and Traitorguard and other orks would be the majority of the playerbase THEN it would actually be a decentish sugestion, and even then it would be questionable. Just as T5 ork boys is questionable due to a multitude of reasons (toughness,lorewise aswell as inevitably balance wise) as a bandaid reaction to increased lethality and durability of many factions.

Did you see the numbers I crunched a couple of pages back?

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
New shoota:
0.44 wounds vs GEQ (50% higher than current shoota at 18", equal at 9").
0.15 wounds vs MEQ (33% higher than current shoota at 18", 11% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs TEQ (33% higher than current shoota at 18", 11% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs T7 3+ (equal to current shoota at 18", 33% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs T8 3+ (100% higher than current shoota at 18", 33% higher at 9").

If we average out the current shoota's 9" and 18" profiles:
0.37 wounds vs GEQ (the new shoota is 20% better).
0.14 wounds vs MEQ (the new shoota is 7% better).
0.07 wounds vs TEQ (the new shoota is 7% better).
0.09 wounds vs T7 3+ (the new shoota is 20% worse).
0.05 wounds vs T8 3+ (the new shoota is 60% better).

Plus it could fire after advancing...

People keep criticising my suggestion for being a "nerf", and criticising me for "being biased"... in a thread that was about buffing the bolter, and over a comment where I casually suggested an alternative profile for the shoota that I thought would be more fluffy, i.e.:
- More shots.
- Blasted full dakka at any range (none of this 3/2 stuff).
- Would continue to be blasted at full dakka even if the Ork advances (again, none of this 3/2 stuff).
- Bullet impact would probably be similar to a lasgun shot (which in my mind is fairly powerful, even if it doesn't stack up that way in the 40k universe).

The real irony, on top of all the above, is that the new shoota would gain more functionality against MEQs than the new bolter would against Boyz in certain situations, namely if there were no FnP in play and if doctrinal AP1 was replaced by AP1 standard on bolt weapons.

The big shoota I suggested gained even more functionality overall.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
50% better vs GEQ than the current big shoota.
12.5% better vs MEQ than the current big shoota.
12.5% better vs TEQ than the current big shoota.
50% better vs T7 3+ than the current big shoota.
25% worse vs T8 3+than the current big shoota.

And that could fire after advancing as well.

So far, nobody's explained how those profiles are actually nerfs (unless you're typically targeting high-toughness 3+ with your shootas/big shootas). Fine, I might be wrong, and oblivious. Please educate me. So far, nobody actually has. The only half-decent reason I've heard is because it's currently possible to deepstrike the shoota 9" away and get to Dakka 3 straight off the bat, which IMO is far from making the calculations above nerfs (or even "sidegrades").

Are you sure that you want lore accurate Space Marines, sorry, Adeptus Astartes on the table?

Are you SURE?

OmG, sO freAkiN aWesOMe

If you want a fixed shoota, just make it a kustom shoota. If you want a fixed big shoota, slap ap 1 and make it 6 shots. There ya go.

I've always preferred the idea that Marines were an elite choice for guard armies, or a space marine lieutenant as am HQ. If I had to give a rule, on the spot, my idea would be similar to Ogres from WHFB, where almost all of them have the Dogs of War rule, so they can be taken in any army as a Rare choice. This means any army can have one or two Ogres in them as mercenaries, but I'd limit Space Marines to only being taken by Imperial Forces. In this scenario, Space Marines would still have their own army, but they'd be a hyper elite skew army. Ogres had 3 wounds, 3 attacks. They were T4 standard I think, and their leaders were T5. Their leaders also generally had better armor. I think following a similar system, but instead of the default being 3 Ogres with 3 wounds each (which was massive in WHFB 6th, where my horde army might have one unit with 6 models attacking, and an elite army might have 4), you'd have Marines with 2 wounds and a good armor save, in a unit of 10 base (their standard deployment), and be a bit better damage wise. Of course, for this, I'd also limit damage quite a bit.

But since Marines still have their own army, they can still be a very popular army, while using a chaff unit as filler. In the Ogre book, they had Gnoblars. You could have Chapter Serfs fill that role. Have the Serfs or Guardsmen limited by the amount of Marines you bring, so if you bring a unit of Marines,. you could bring a unit of Serfs and put it up to 20 models, and now you have a chaff unit for the most popular army, and now people have to account for a horde inside an elite army, so skew doesn't function as well, and a TAC list needs to account for chaff and hyper elites, but you can't ignore all the armies that fall between, so they actually need to account for everything.

In conclusion, this would mean a group of Marines could exist in other armies as a 0-1 choice, and be durable, if we tones down damage and applied a few changes so TAC lists aren't just Anti Armor lists.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:


Lemme pose a question to the board. Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?

If 40k was reality? Sure, same as to why the US Military spends millions training Special Forces and Marine Force Recon elements. They are a force multiplier when used correctly. In and of themselves in a firefight on a normal battlefield they aren't much better than your standard Marine or Soldier, but they have the training and gear to pull off ridiculous force multiplier missions, like removing enemy Command and Control, guerilla tactics to disrupt supply chains etc etc.

As far as calling your suggestion about Shootas being a sidegrade at best? its because it is. I have been very adamant since the codex leaked that the new "Dakka" rule was a straight NERF to shootas and big shootas. Most of your proposed "Buffs" would be returning it to how it was last edition before some idiot at GW decided DAKKA! 3(2) was a better profile than Assault 2 and the old "Dakka Dakka Dakka" rule.

As an example, a Mob of 30 Shoota boyz in 8th, already terrible btw, were 210pts, at 18' range they got 60 shots, 23.3 hits (DDD),11.67wounds and 3.89dmg. The new "Dakka" shootas of 9th are 30 shoota boyz costing you 270pts at 18' range getting 60 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg. YOUR proposed rule would be 120 shots, 40 hits, 13.3 wounds and 4.44dmg. So your proposed "buff" would gain a mob of 30 boyz costing 270pts a grand total of...0.55 extra dmg per shooting phase over what it was back in 8th. So yeah, its a SIDE GRADE at best. Even if you reduced boyz price to 7ppm like they used to be it would still be a side grade or a buff so minuscule as to be irrelevant in a game. Lets put it another way, it would take those 30 boyz 4 turns to inflict 1 extra Marine casualty. Make them Assault 4 24' range and S4 and we can talk about it being a buff, it still wouldn't make shoota boyz that good either. (120 shots, 40 hits, 20 wounds, 6.6dmg or 3.3dead Marines OR 66pts of dead Intercessor, not good for a 270pt unit)

And i'll just politely once again point out that Bolters have actually received numerous buffs in the recent history of 40k, at least for Marines. Specifically Bolter drill or whatever they called it which allows Marines to shoot twice at 24' instead of 12 AND they gained doctrines so they get -1AP for a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you want a fixed shoota, just make it a kustom shoota. If you want a fixed big shoota, slap ap 1 and make it 6 shots. There ya go.

Ork boy + Big shoota = 14pts. 6 shots = 2 hits, = 1.33 wounds vs T4 and against a Marine that would be 0.44dmg. To kill 2 Marine would take 9 Big shoota boyz. So 126pts to kill 40pts of Intercessor. Honestly a lot better than it currently is, but still not enough to justify the time taken to roll the dice. Plus, good luck getting 9 Big shoota boyz

SemperMortis wrote:

Bolters have actually received numerous buffs in the recent history of 40k, at least for Marines. Specifically Bolter drill or whatever they called it which allows Marines to shoot twice at 24' instead of 12 AND they gained doctrines so they get -1AP for a turn.

How many times, that is the marine getting a buff, not the bolter.

Let me translate - Orks are now armed with bolters. Did that bolter receive any buffs since the beginning of 8th ed? Is that rapid fire 1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun adequate? Is it any better than the Dakka 2(3) 18" s4 ap- d1 gun they have now?

TheBestBucketHead wrote:I've always preferred the idea that Marines were an elite choice for guard armies, or a space marine lieutenant as am HQ.

Yep... basically a premium heavy shock unit that could have done a lot of what bullgryns or scions currently do, but better. Want to take an objective... and then hold it? Want to drop into the enemy's midst... and then survive there? Want to bolster a battleline of beleaguered guardsmen, or take out a high-value target that your big guns can't reach?

SemperMortis wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:


Lemme pose a question to the board. Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?

If 40k was reality? Sure, same as to why the US Military spends millions training Special Forces and Marine Force Recon elements. They are a force multiplier when used correctly. In and of themselves in a firefight on a normal battlefield they aren't much better than your standard Marine or Soldier, but they have the training and gear to pull off ridiculous force multiplier missions, like removing enemy Command and Control, guerilla tactics to disrupt supply chains etc etc.

I think Scions/Stormtroopers are the closest analogue to conventional SOF in the AM (or even Imperium more broadly).

Astartes weren't created for that purpose; they were created to wage total war in humanity's reclamation of the stars, i.e. as transhuman legionary footsoldiers of the Great Crusade. The Imperial Army was formed to support the Astartes and provide garrison forces.

Astartes may be rarer now, and deploy in smaller numbers, but they aren't conventional special forces. They're supremely-armed and armoured superhuman shock troops who occasionally fulfil a special forces role. And each Astartes requires hundreds or thousands of times the investment (material and otherwise) of even the most elite special forces operative today.

18 pts...

SemperMortis wrote:As far as calling your suggestion about Shootas being a sidegrade at best? its because it is. I have been very adamant since the codex leaked that the new "Dakka" rule was a straight NERF to shootas and big shootas. Most of your proposed "Buffs" would be returning it to how it was last edition before some idiot at GW decided DAKKA! 3(2) was a better profile than Assault 2 and the old "Dakka Dakka Dakka" rule.

Yes, exactly. The opposite of a nerf is usually called a buff.

I don't care what the stats once were. I care about how the weapon concepts translate into stats now.

SemperMortis wrote:As an example, a Mob of 30 Shoota boyz in 8th, already terrible btw, were 210pts, at 18' range they got 60 shots, 23.3 hits (DDD),11.67wounds and 3.89dmg. The new "Dakka" shootas of 9th are 30 shoota boyz costing you 270pts at 18' range getting 60 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg. YOUR proposed rule would be 120 shots, 40 hits, 13.3 wounds and 4.44dmg. So your proposed "buff" would gain a mob of 30 boyz costing 270pts a grand total of...0.55 extra dmg per shooting phase over what it was back in 8th. So yeah, its a SIDE GRADE at best. Even if you reduced boyz price to 7ppm like they used to be it would still be a side grade or a buff so minuscule as to be irrelevant in a game. Lets put it another way, it would take those 30 boyz 4 turns to inflict 1 extra Marine casualty. Make them Assault 4 24' range and S4 and we can talk about it being a buff, it still wouldn't make shoota boyz that good either. (120 shots, 40 hits, 20 wounds, 6.6dmg or 3.3dead Marines OR 66pts of dead Intercessor, not good for a 270pt unit)

I appreciate that you provided a bit more detail here.

My "buffs" were me spitballing a profile that seemed appropriate fluff-wise, given everything out there about the weapon. I stand by the numbers I chose in terms of how the weapon concept should be represented on the tabletop (but happy to hear alternatives).

It seems like you want the Ork shoota to be a... Range 18, Assault 4 bolter? (And you've made it clear in the other thread that you don't think the bolter should change, so basically, you believe that each Ork should have a weapon significantly better than a Marine):
- Boy w/ your shoota vs MEQ: 0.22 wounds up to 18".
- Boy w/ a bolter vs MEQ: 0.11 wounds up to 12" (-50%), 0.06 wounds up to 24" (-75%).

(This is obviously ignoring the BS of the firer, and just focusing on the weapon itself.)

Whether or not the points costs are fair is obviously open to debate, but the points should follow the stats IMO, not the other way around. If Orks with ramshackle machineguns are rubbish, price them accordingly.

SemperMortis wrote:And i'll just politely once again point out that Bolters have actually received numerous buffs in the recent history of 40k, at least for Marines. Specifically Bolter drill or whatever they called it which allows Marines to shoot twice at 24' instead of 12 AND they gained doctrines so they get -1AP for a turn.

And I'll just politely once again point out that those aren't buffs to the actual bolter. New bolt weapons have been introduced, as have new strategems, army rules, doctrines, etc. to work around bolters being subpar... but not bolter buffs. Everyone in the other thread seems to think that things like doctrinal AP buffs are a lame pseudo-substitute and should go.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:


Lemme pose a question to the board. Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?

If 40k was reality? Sure, same as to why the US Military spends millions training Special Forces and Marine Force Recon elements. They are a force multiplier when used correctly. In and of themselves in a firefight on a normal battlefield they aren't much better than your standard Marine or Soldier, but they have the training and gear to pull off ridiculous force multiplier missions, like removing enemy Command and Control, guerilla tactics to disrupt supply chains etc etc.

I think Scions/Stormtroopers are the closest analogue to conventional SOF in the AM (or even Imperium more broadly).

Astartes weren't created for that purpose; they were created to wage total war in humanity's reclamation of the stars, i.e. as transhuman legionary footsoldiers of the Great Crusade. The Imperial Army was formed to support the Astartes and provide garrison forces.

Astartes may be rarer now, and deploy in smaller numbers, but they aren't conventional special forces. They're supremely-armed and armoured superhuman shock troops who occasionally fulfil a special forces role. And each Astartes requires hundreds or thousands of times the investment (material and otherwise) of even the most elite special forces operative today.

18 pts...

Points value represents the value on the tabletop, not the value in the setting itself. The tabletop interactions are pretty superficial, being reduced roughly down to Damage In/Out. Much of a Marine's actual value is either not well represented through the game mechanics (morale), or just not within the scope of the game (speed of deployment/combat endurance).

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Bolters have actually received numerous buffs in the recent history of 40k, at least for Marines. Specifically Bolter drill or whatever they called it which allows Marines to shoot twice at 24' instead of 12 AND they gained doctrines so they get -1AP for a turn.

How many times, that is the marine getting a buff, not the bolter.

Let me translate - Orks are now armed with bolters. Did that bolter receive any buffs since the beginning of 8th ed? Is that rapid fire 1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun adequate? Is it any better than the Dakka 2(3) 18" s4 ap- d1 gun they have now?

Yes...the most common faction in the game, who just happens to use bolt weapons across the board for the vast majority of their infantry/infantry support weapons (Bolter/Stormbolter/Hurricane Bolter etc) received two separate buffs to their ability to use bolters....I mean...I kind of spelled that out, not sure why you are rehashing the point. Is it to point out that some rare units in the imperial guard didn't get a buff? or that SoBs need another buff? those are all valid arguments we can discuss, but arguing that the base bolter didn't get better because its just the unit that got better is pedantic at best. Buffing a Bolter so it increases for all units/factions which use it will have a massively influential impact on Marines more than any other factions in the game so lets just be honest here.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Astartes weren't created for that purpose; they were created to wage total war in humanity's reclamation of the stars, i.e. as transhuman legionary footsoldiers of the Great Crusade. The Imperial Army was formed to support the Astartes and provide garrison forces.

Astartes may be rarer now, and deploy in smaller numbers, but they aren't conventional special forces. They're supremely-armed and armoured superhuman shock troops who occasionally fulfil a special forces role. And each Astartes requires hundreds or thousands of times the investment (material and otherwise) of even the most elite special forces operative today.

18 pts...

They were designed as force multipliers in the old fluff, the new fluff is yet again written from a fanboy perspective with little to no ability to grasp common sense which is self evident by their number counts. "OMG! 10,000 Marines just took over an entire planet! WOW!" Ok...10k.....why didn't the planet owners just nuke their drop sites and wipe them out en-mass and not have to worry about it? Its almost like this is a fantasy setting where we have to suspend common sense in order for some of their more ridiculous claims to work. Another great example of GW not understanding how numbers work, the 3rd war of Armageddon, which was supposed to have been the largest war in Imperial history since the Great Crusade. Ghazghkull united vast swathes of the galaxies orkz under his command to invade Armageddon. So how many troops were we talking about? Less than the numbers who fought in WW1. Good job GW. Regardless, the original question was

Why go through the laborious, gruelling, decades-long process of transforming a human into an Astartes... implanting them with dozens of new organs, the black carapace, precious (and dwindling?) geneseed stocks, etc... sourcing sacred armaments, ancient suits of armour and other priceless equipment for them, all of which requires rigorous ongoing maintenance by extensive retinues of techpriests and their assistants (and some serious incense and candle budgets)... indoctrinating these men, training them relentlessly for upwards of twenty hours every day... if grabbing four dudes off the street and handing them mass-produced flak jackets and lasrifles would prove more valuable on the battlefield (literally, Conscripts are 28% the cost of a Tac Marine)?

And my answer was, if the game was more reality based, as a force multiplier rather than to win entire wars on their own...kind of like how in the vast majority of the fluff, they augment imperial forces rather than launch entire global spanning wars of their own.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:As far as calling your suggestion about Shootas being a sidegrade at best? its because it is. I have been very adamant since the codex leaked that the new "Dakka" rule was a straight NERF to shootas and big shootas. Most of your proposed "Buffs" would be returning it to how it was last edition before some idiot at GW decided DAKKA! 3(2) was a better profile than Assault 2 and the old "Dakka Dakka Dakka" rule.

Yes, exactly. The opposite of a nerf is usually called a buff.
I don't care what the stats once were. I care about how the weapon concepts translate into stats now.

Cool, and I call nerfing an already crap weapon into the dirt to the point where shootas boyz almost never make an appearance even in local friendly tournaments is a dumb move, and "buffing" them back to basically where they were (worse when adjusted for points cost increases) isn't a buff. That would be like me taking bolters, reducing them to S3, increasing your cost of taking them by 2ppm, taking away new Rapid Fire rules for them and than, 1 edition later, "buffing" them back to S4. Not really a buff is it?

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:As an example, a Mob of 30 Shoota boyz in 8th, already terrible btw, were 210pts, at 18' range they got 60 shots, 23.3 hits (DDD),11.67wounds and 3.89dmg. The new "Dakka" shootas of 9th are 30 shoota boyz costing you 270pts at 18' range getting 60 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds and 3.3dmg. YOUR proposed rule would be 120 shots, 40 hits, 13.3 wounds and 4.44dmg. So your proposed "buff" would gain a mob of 30 boyz costing 270pts a grand total of...0.55 extra dmg per shooting phase over what it was back in 8th. So yeah, its a SIDE GRADE at best. Even if you reduced boyz price to 7ppm like they used to be it would still be a side grade or a buff so minuscule as to be irrelevant in a game. Lets put it another way, it would take those 30 boyz 4 turns to inflict 1 extra Marine casualty. Make them Assault 4 24' range and S4 and we can talk about it being a buff, it still wouldn't make shoota boyz that good either. (120 shots, 40 hits, 20 wounds, 6.6dmg or 3.3dead Marines OR 66pts of dead Intercessor, not good for a 270pt unit)

I appreciate that you provided a bit more detail here. My "buffs" were me spitballing a profile that seemed appropriate fluff-wise, given everything out there about the weapon. I stand by the numbers I chose in terms of how the weapon concept should be represented on the tabletop (but happy to hear alternatives).

It seems like you want the Ork shoota to be a... Range 18, Assault 4 bolter? (And you've made it clear in the other thread that you don't think the bolter should change, so basically, you believe that each Ork should have a weapon significantly better than a Marine):
- Boy w/ your shoota vs MEQ: 0.22 wounds up to 18".
- Boy w/ a bolter vs MEQ: 0.11 wounds up to 12" (-50%), 0.06 wounds up to 24" (-75%).

(This is obviously ignoring the BS of the firer, and just focusing on the weapon itself.)

Whether or not the points costs are fair is obviously open to debate, but the points should follow the stats IMO, not the other way around. If Orks with ramshackle machineguns are rubbish, price them accordingly.

Go back multiple editions ago, to when the game was ironically somehow more balanced than it currently is. A Boy was 6ppm and a Marine was 15ppm. It took 9 Boyz shooting with their Shootas to kill 1 Marine. 18 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 failed armor save = 1 dead Marine. That is 54pts of Ork killing 15pts of Marine, not a great return on investment but for that Edition it was fine. The Marine likewise took 3 shots to kill 1 Ork boy. 3 shots, 2 hits, 1 wound, 1 dead Ork. So 45pts to kill 6pts. That's an even worse return on investment, the difference being that for one thing, the Marine was outdistancing the Ork boy by 6' and two , as the distance inevitably closed the Marine DOUBLED its efficiency so that at 12' it was 45pts killing 12pts. This exchange usually was won by whichever faction got the jump on the other and got the first round of shooting in. Now lets look at the current averages.

Its now 18pts vs 9pts model wise and to kill 1 Marine it now takes 36 Shots so 36 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds 2 failed saves for 1 Dead Marine. At Normal range thats 18 boyz to kill 1 Marine. Put that another way, it takes 162pts to kill 18pts. On the reverse of that, to kill 1 Ork it currently takes 5.4 shots, or 48.6pts to kill 9pts of Ork.

The math is currently so horrifically bad that Shoota boyz have become all but extinct in the current meta, even in friendly games. And even if by a miracle, you get boyz into half range (9 inches) that just reduces the cost from 162 to 108pts to kill 18pts. You said you can price them accordingly...well you can't. Even if you reduced boyz to 6ppm, it would still take 108pts to kill 18pts of Marine, and honestly you are going to have a hell of a time trying to justify to someone why taking 18 models to kill 1 Marine is both fun and competitive.

Also, I highlighted part of your reply to point out an issue, you ignored the BS of the firer...well that is kind of a problem because the reason why orkz need 4-6 shots per gun is the fact that we hit on 5s. So ignoring the biggest hindrance to Ork ranged firepower is a bit ridiculous. Dudeface made a comment about the shoota vs the bolter and said would I rather take the bolter, and the answer is YES if I get the current rules the Marine factions get with it, IE BS3, 2 shots at 24' AP-1 on turn 2, yes, I would take that in a heartbeat over Dakka 3(2) any day of the week. You can't ignore the BS of the most common user of the weapon because that is literally part of its inherent power.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I think Scions/Stormtroopers are the closest analogue to conventional SOF in the AM (or even Imperium more broadly).

This is 100% the case in the lore. There is only 1 million marines, there are quadrillions of humans in 40k. Marines don't even make up 0.000001% of that population.

If we assume that just 10% of the human population are in the Imperial Guard, that's hundreds of trillions of Guardsmen. Which is backed up in the lore.

Then if we assume stormtroopers/scions only makes up 1% of that population. That's still in the single trillions. If it's less than that say 0.1% that's still hundreds of billions.

Jarms48 wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
I think Scions/Stormtroopers are the closest analogue to conventional SOF in the AM (or even Imperium more broadly).

This is 100% the case in the lore. There is only 1 million marines, there are quadrillions of humans in 40k. Marines don't even make up 0.000001% of that population.

If we assume that just 10% of the human population are in the Imperial Guard, that's hundreds of trillions of Guardsmen. Which is backed up in the lore.

Then if we assume stormtroopers/scions only makes up 1% of that population. That's still in the single trillions. If it's less than that say 0.1% that's still hundreds of billions.

In the lore, what happens to Space Marines who have fought insidious enemies at the behest of the Inquisition?
They have their minds wiped.

What happens to guardsmen who fight the same?
The ships carrying them home are opened to space. And the passengers don't have spacesuits.

I'm not talking about what you see on the tabletop, but rather what happens in universe between battles. And it doesn't even occur to most people that play the game.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Bolters have actually received numerous buffs in the recent history of 40k, at least for Marines. Specifically Bolter drill or whatever they called it which allows Marines to shoot twice at 24' instead of 12 AND they gained doctrines so they get -1AP for a turn.

How many times, that is the marine getting a buff, not the bolter.

Let me translate - Orks are now armed with bolters. Did that bolter receive any buffs since the beginning of 8th ed? Is that rapid fire 1 24" s4 ap- d1 gun adequate? Is it any better than the Dakka 2(3) 18" s4 ap- d1 gun they have now?

Yes...the most common faction in the game, who just happens to use bolt weapons across the board for the vast majority of their infantry/infantry support weapons (Bolter/Stormbolter/Hurricane Bolter etc) received two separate buffs to their ability to use bolters....I mean...I kind of spelled that out, not sure why you are rehashing the point. Is it to point out that some rare units in the imperial guard didn't get a buff? or that SoBs need another buff? those are all valid arguments we can discuss, but arguing that the base bolter didn't get better because its just the unit that got better is pedantic at best. Buffing a Bolter so it increases for all units/factions which use it will have a massively influential impact on Marines more than any other factions in the game so lets just be honest here.

I'm rehashing the point because you're seemingly incapable of evaluating the weapons and not space marines. Maybe if the bolter was better they wouldn't need multiple layered rules on top to make it even passable.

I noticed despite derailing every topic into a rant about how bad boyz are you opted not to answer my question: would you take base profile bolters on shoota boyz and is it better than a shoota?

I think we both know the answer to both is "no" or "they'd be about the same", which given how low your regard for the shoota is says something.

Dudeface wrote:


I noticed despite derailing every topic into a rant about how bad boyz are you opted not to answer my question: would you take base profile bolters on shoota boyz and is it better than a shoota?

I think we both know the answer to both is "no" or "they'd be about the same", which given how low your regard for the shoota is says something.

Ironically, i have in fact answered this question or a similar question for you and others MULTIPLE times because its a ridiculously bad argument. The answer is YES if I can take your Ballistic Skill and special rules with it, in a heart beat.

2 ork boyz with shootas = 1 Marine point wise. 2 Ork boyz at 24' get 0 shots, Marine gets 2, at 18 they get 4 shots which is 1.33 hits, that Marine is getting 1.33 hits as well. At 9' the Orkz jump to 6 shots for 2 hits on average The marine is still plinking away at 2 shots this entire time. Oh, and on the 2nd turn that Bolter gets AP-1 which drastically increases its effectiveness against most factions....ironically except against Marine or similar factions because they needed a new snowflake rule to make Marines better than ever.

So if my Boyz get 2 shots at 24' instead of 2 at 18, get BS3 instead of BS5 and on the 2nd turn get AP-1..yeah its a no brainer.

I literally made a point that you can't compare a weapon in a vacuum because if nothing else cost and Ballistic skill are just as important but you had to jump right in and continue your pedantic point and to make bad arguments about whether or not I would take a bolter or a shoota on a basic infantry model.

Go ahead and keep comparing your weapons profiles in a vacuum, i'll just keep regarding your arguments as mostly intellectually dishonest at best.

He isn't wrong though that you wouldn't take a Bolter. Any offense from a Tactical Marine squad comes from the Special and Heavy weapon they get. Otherwise if you like a better base gun you grab Intercessors.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He isn't wrong though that you wouldn't take a Bolter. Any offense from a Tactical Marine squad comes from the Special and Heavy weapon they get. Otherwise if you like a better base gun you grab Intercessors.

I literally just said I would, if I can take the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it. Looking at a weapon in a vacuum is useless. You have to compare it to the way it is most commonly employed. In the case of the bolter its on a Marine. On a shoota its on a Boy. In this scenario the Bolter is superior pretty much across the board.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He isn't wrong though that you wouldn't take a Bolter. Any offense from a Tactical Marine squad comes from the Special and Heavy weapon they get. Otherwise if you like a better base gun you grab Intercessors.

I literally just said I would, if I can take the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it. Looking at a weapon in a vacuum is useless. You have to compare it to the way it is most commonly employed. In the case of the bolter its on a Marine. On a shoota its on a Boy. In this scenario the Bolter is superior pretty much across the board.

Okay, so you'll take the Sisters Bolter then?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He isn't wrong though that you wouldn't take a Bolter. Any offense from a Tactical Marine squad comes from the Special and Heavy weapon they get. Otherwise if you like a better base gun you grab Intercessors.

I literally just said I would, if I can take the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it. Looking at a weapon in a vacuum is useless. You have to compare it to the way it is most commonly employed. In the case of the bolter its on a Marine. On a shoota its on a Boy. In this scenario the Bolter is superior pretty much across the board.

Okay, so you'll take the Sisters Bolter then?

I mean, an Ork with a BS3+ Bolter gets 2/3 hits at 24", and 4/3 hits at 12". All S4 AP0 D1.
Right now, they get 2/3 hits at 18" and 1 hit at 9", same profile.

So it would get them better range for the same number of hits, and better damage within 12" by a decent chunk.
Doesn't even lose Advance and Shoot-they already lost that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He isn't wrong though that you wouldn't take a Bolter. Any offense from a Tactical Marine squad comes from the Special and Heavy weapon they get. Otherwise if you like a better base gun you grab Intercessors.

I literally just said I would, if I can take the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it. Looking at a weapon in a vacuum is useless. You have to compare it to the way it is most commonly employed. In the case of the bolter its on a Marine. On a shoota its on a Boy. In this scenario the Bolter is superior pretty much across the board.

Okay, so you'll take the Sisters Bolter then?

Let me highlight the portion which answers your question for you.

the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it

notice the "special rules" part.

which means JNAP that at 24' the orkz would be getting 1.33 hits not 2/3rd but yeah, even as your own math shows, without the special rules its still an upgrade

I mean, lets agree on a few principles for a basic analysis. Stock weapon with faction special rules. (please add in faction rules I miss)

Shoota....2 shots at 18, 3 at 9. S4 no AP 1dmg BS5
Bolter: 2 shots at 24, 1 shot at 13-24 if moving and 2 at 12 regardless, S4 AP-1 on turn 2. BS3.
Shuriken Catapult: Assault 2 18' range S4 -1AP 1dmg BS3. Shuriken, wound rolls of 6 become AP-3
Splinter Rifle: RF 1 24' range S2 Poison, no AP 1dmg. BS3 Always wounds on a 4+
Lasgun: RF1 24' range S3 no AP 1dmg BS4.
Gauss Flayer RF1 24 range S4 AP-1 1dmg. BS3
Pulse Rifle: RF1 36' range S5 AP-1 1dmg. BS4
Fleshborer:Assault 1 18' range S5 AP-1 BS4


A bolter is literally bog standard, pretty much in the middle of all of these guns. The weakest are by far the Shoota and the lasgun, the top end is without a shadow of a doubt the Pulse Rifle which is both stronger, has AP and has 50% more range.

If you really want to give Bolters -1AP you could make an argument for that, so long as you took away doctrines, and honestly Marines would need a points increase for a few things, like the hurricane bolter and the Stormbolter. But otherwise yeah go ahead, but lets not pretend like its much weaker than everything else, its pretty much smack dab in the middle.

 carldooley wrote:

What happens to guardsmen who fight the same?
The ships carrying them home are opened to space. And the passengers don't have spacesuits.

The most common enemies in the Imperium are rebels, Orks, and Tyranids. These kind of evens only typically happen when daemons are involved and thus relatively rare.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
He isn't wrong though that you wouldn't take a Bolter. Any offense from a Tactical Marine squad comes from the Special and Heavy weapon they get. Otherwise if you like a better base gun you grab Intercessors.

I literally just said I would, if I can take the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it. Looking at a weapon in a vacuum is useless. You have to compare it to the way it is most commonly employed. In the case of the bolter its on a Marine. On a shoota its on a Boy. In this scenario the Bolter is superior pretty much across the board.

Okay, so you'll take the Sisters Bolter then?

Let me highlight the portion which answers your question for you.

the bolter special rules AND BS that goes along with it

notice the "special rules" part.

which means JNAP that at 24' the orkz would be getting 1.33 hits not 2/3rd but yeah, even as your own math shows, without the special rules its still an upgrade

I mean, lets agree on a few principles for a basic analysis. Stock weapon with faction special rules. (please add in faction rules I miss)

Shoota....2 shots at 18, 3 at 9. S4 no AP 1dmg BS5
Bolter: 2 shots at 24, 1 shot at 13-24 if moving and 2 at 12 regardless, S4 AP-1 on turn 2. BS3.
Shuriken Catapult: Assault 2 18' range S4 -1AP 1dmg BS3. Shuriken, wound rolls of 6 become AP-3
Splinter Rifle: RF 1 24' range S2 Poison, no AP 1dmg. BS3 Always wounds on a 4+
Lasgun: RF1 24' range S3 no AP 1dmg BS4.
Gauss Flayer RF1 24 range S4 AP-1 1dmg. BS3
Pulse Rifle: RF1 36' range S5 AP-1 1dmg. BS4
Fleshborer:Assault 1 18' range S5 AP-1 BS4


A bolter is literally bog standard, pretty much in the middle of all of these guns. The weakest are by far the Shoota and the lasgun, the top end is without a shadow of a doubt the Pulse Rifle which is both stronger, has AP and has 50% more range.

If you really want to give Bolters -1AP you could make an argument for that, so long as you took away doctrines, and honestly Marines would need a points increase for a few things, like the hurricane bolter and the Stormbolter. But otherwise yeah go ahead, but lets not pretend like its much weaker than everything else, its pretty much smack dab in the middle.

So no, you wouldn't swap a shoota for a bolter unless you take a marine stats and profile with you. JNAP worked out a bs3 bolter against a bs5 shoota. Without taking another factions rules the bolter is better 24>18, the same 12>9 and strictly worse at every other range.

Ork boyz with bolters would suck just as much, if not worse than with shootas.

Again, look at your list above, you're mistaking a space marine for a bolter. Sisters don't get 2 shots at 24", chaos marine and sisters don't get ap-1 on turn 2.

Stop being disingenuous.

When you talk about 0 points weapons the stats and the cost of their platforms should always be considered, not to mention the faction's rules. So buffing a bolter for a chaos marine, a sister or a tactical is not the same. Some of those units might need points hikes to compensate the buff, others would be just fine.

 Blackie wrote:
When you talk about 0 points weapons the stats and the cost of their platforms should always be considered, not to mention the faction's rules. So buffing a bolter for a chaos marine, a sister or a tactical is not the same. Some of those units might need points hikes to compensate the buff, others would be just fine.

I think that's a commonly accepted outcome, the assumed circumstance involves removing a lot of the layered faction rules and transferring some of it to the profile.