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.

Well the problem with this is that for what ever reason GW has this idea that weapons should cost the same no matter what uses them. And there is a drastic difference in efficiency between an IG Lt swining a powerfist and a chaptermaster doing the same.

 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.

Bolters should not have plasma stats or lasgun stats based on whether it is 0 or 5 pts on an Infantry Squad Sergeant, instead, it should be based on what feels right during gameplay relative to the fluff.

Dudeface wrote:


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.

Its almost like I have been saying this very thing for several posts you keep choosing to ignore because you want to push an agenda that is both ridiculous and without merit.

SoB are a tiny faction with a fraction of the player base. A tiny amount of Guard players use bolters occasionally on their units but 99% of the time they aren't using a bolter. So when you argue to buff bolters you are de-facto arguing to buff Marines and Chaos Marines. Any argument you have past this main point is bullcrap. You want MARINES to have better basic weapons. And I have pointed out that MARINES have had their bolters buffed in 2 very important ways over the last few years. And yes I would absolutely take a Marine bolter over a shoota if I could take the BS3 and the -1AP to go along with it like Marines get. Here is a better question for you. Would you as a Marine player take a shoota over a Bolter if you didn't get doctrines or any other buffs? The answer is a resounding no and you know it.

4th edition bolter armed Marine was 15pts, it killed 0.33 Ork boyz a turn at 13-24' range. At 12' range it killed 0.66 boyz
9th edition bolter armed Marine is 18pts, it kills 0.37 boyz at 24' range, and on turn 2 it kills 0.44

4th edition bolter took 3 Marines (45pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (6pts) or 2 (12pts) at half range. That is a 0.13ppd and 0.26ppd
9th edition bolter takes 2.7 Marines (48pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (9pts) or 2.25 Marines (40.25pts) on turn 2. That is a 0.18ppd and 0.223ppd

So your standard MARINE bolter has gotten noticeably more points effective against a regular Ork boy as we have progressed in newer editions. So you wanting more dmg for your standard bolter is an argument based on wanting a unit noticeably more powerful than any iteration its been since the 4th edition at least.

All nice and good, until the ork players stop using ork boys, so being better at killing them doesn't matter. Right now the basic stuff to kill is a light vehicle, a monster or something else multi wound etc. And for that other armies basic weapons are stronger and better.

Most of the lists that place high at tournaments have several infantry models and not a single buggy. They just don't spam boyz. Kommandos, stormboyz, snaggas and trukk boyz show up regularly in competitive lists. Meganobz also. Most of the multi wound models that you see in such lists (T5 3-4 W) have the profile of a SM infantry model, with a worse save.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


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.

Its almost like I have been saying this very thing for several posts you keep choosing to ignore because you want to push an agenda that is both ridiculous and without merit.

SoB are a tiny faction with a fraction of the player base. A tiny amount of Guard players use bolters occasionally on their units but 99% of the time they aren't using a bolter. So when you argue to buff bolters you are de-facto arguing to buff Marines and Chaos Marines. Any argument you have past this main point is bullcrap. You want MARINES to have better basic weapons. And I have pointed out that MARINES have had their bolters buffed in 2 very important ways over the last few years. And yes I would absolutely take a Marine bolter over a shoota if I could take the BS3 and the -1AP to go along with it like Marines get. Here is a better question for you. Would you as a Marine player take a shoota over a Bolter if you didn't get doctrines or any other buffs? The answer is a resounding no and you know it.

4th edition bolter armed Marine was 15pts, it killed 0.33 Ork boyz a turn at 13-24' range. At 12' range it killed 0.66 boyz
9th edition bolter armed Marine is 18pts, it kills 0.37 boyz at 24' range, and on turn 2 it kills 0.44

4th edition bolter took 3 Marines (45pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (6pts) or 2 (12pts) at half range. That is a 0.13ppd and 0.26ppd
9th edition bolter takes 2.7 Marines (48pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (9pts) or 2.25 Marines (40.25pts) on turn 2. That is a 0.18ppd and 0.223ppd

So your standard MARINE bolter has gotten noticeably more points effective against a regular Ork boy as we have progressed in newer editions. So you wanting more dmg for your standard bolter is an argument based on wanting a unit noticeably more powerful than any iteration its been since the 4th edition at least.

As a chaos marine player I could be tempted by a shoota as it is, I often want to be up close and unless I'm building a specific longer range unit the bolter has no extra benefit. I'm fact having 2 shots at 18" and being able to move would be pretty handy.

But yes, you keep making the point and not answering the question, you would not swap a shoota for a base bolter as they're both awful.

But you're right, I'm clearly advocating that a pillow fisted gun needs to be better and you're obsessed with comparing loyalist Marines and ork boyz on loop, so I think it's pointles.

But you know I don't play loyalist Marines, so I'll go sit in a corner with the sisters players with our imaginary ap-1 bolters and be happy.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


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.

Its almost like I have been saying this very thing for several posts you keep choosing to ignore because you want to push an agenda that is both ridiculous and without merit.

SoB are a tiny faction with a fraction of the player base. A tiny amount of Guard players use bolters occasionally on their units but 99% of the time they aren't using a bolter. So when you argue to buff bolters you are de-facto arguing to buff Marines and Chaos Marines. Any argument you have past this main point is bullcrap. You want MARINES to have better basic weapons. And I have pointed out that MARINES have had their bolters buffed in 2 very important ways over the last few years. And yes I would absolutely take a Marine bolter over a shoota if I could take the BS3 and the -1AP to go along with it like Marines get. Here is a better question for you. Would you as a Marine player take a shoota over a Bolter if you didn't get doctrines or any other buffs? The answer is a resounding no and you know it.

4th edition bolter armed Marine was 15pts, it killed 0.33 Ork boyz a turn at 13-24' range. At 12' range it killed 0.66 boyz
9th edition bolter armed Marine is 18pts, it kills 0.37 boyz at 24' range, and on turn 2 it kills 0.44

4th edition bolter took 3 Marines (45pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (6pts) or 2 (12pts) at half range. That is a 0.13ppd and 0.26ppd
9th edition bolter takes 2.7 Marines (48pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (9pts) or 2.25 Marines (40.25pts) on turn 2. That is a 0.18ppd and 0.223ppd

So your standard MARINE bolter has gotten noticeably more points effective against a regular Ork boy as we have progressed in newer editions. So you wanting more dmg for your standard bolter is an argument based on wanting a unit noticeably more powerful than any iteration its been since the 4th edition at least.

If Ork Boyz were 7 pts should bolters be changed to S5? If the answer is no then maybe you can understand why some people find your math on pts-efficiency irrelevant to the topic. Try comparing how many slugga Boyz vs shoota Boyz are needed to kill 10 SM, I think that might be a more fruitful discussion. Or Assault Marines vs Tactical Marines to kill 10 Boyz or a Trukk.

Dudeface wrote:
But you know I don't play loyalist Marines, so I'll go sit in a corner with the sisters players with our imaginary ap-1 bolters and be happy.

At least you get evil bolter discipline... On most units.

SemperMortis wrote:


4th edition bolter armed Marine was 15pts, it killed 0.33 Ork boyz a turn at 13-24' range. At 12' range it killed 0.66 boyz
9th edition bolter armed Marine is 18pts, it kills 0.37 boyz at 24' range, and on turn 2 it kills 0.44

4th edition bolter took 3 Marines (45pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (6pts) or 2 (12pts) at half range. That is a 0.13ppd and 0.26ppd
9th edition bolter takes 2.7 Marines (48pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (9pts) or 2.25 Marines (40.25pts) on turn 2. That is a 0.18ppd and 0.223ppd

So your standard MARINE bolter has gotten noticeably more points effective against a regular Ork boy as we have progressed in newer editions. So you wanting more dmg for your standard bolter is an argument based on wanting a unit noticeably more powerful than any iteration its been since the 4th edition at least.

The Ork codex was terribly done. They should go back and change nearly the whole thing. Dakka weapons should be a weapon ability like Plague Weapons. Make shootas assault 2 again, then make Dakka a bonus hit on 6’s. Deffgun could be Heavy 3, Dakka. Big Shoota assault 4, Dakka.

Jarms48 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


4th edition bolter armed Marine was 15pts, it killed 0.33 Ork boyz a turn at 13-24' range. At 12' range it killed 0.66 boyz
9th edition bolter armed Marine is 18pts, it kills 0.37 boyz at 24' range, and on turn 2 it kills 0.44

4th edition bolter took 3 Marines (45pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (6pts) or 2 (12pts) at half range. That is a 0.13ppd and 0.26ppd
9th edition bolter takes 2.7 Marines (48pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (9pts) or 2.25 Marines (40.25pts) on turn 2. That is a 0.18ppd and 0.223ppd

So your standard MARINE bolter has gotten noticeably more points effective against a regular Ork boy as we have progressed in newer editions. So you wanting more dmg for your standard bolter is an argument based on wanting a unit noticeably more powerful than any iteration its been since the 4th edition at least.

The Ork codex was terribly done. They should go back and change nearly the whole thing. Dakka weapons should be a weapon ability like Plague Weapons. Make shootas assault 2 again, then make Dakka a bonus hit on 6’s. Deffgun could be Heavy 3, Dakka. Big Shoota assault 4, Dakka.

Why not give all Ork weapons Dakka? Too accurate for your taste or what?

...you are aware that Jarms just picked three weapons to use as examples, right, rather than listing every weapon from the Codex? Sheesh.

Having said that, I think I prefer that Dakka be more shots at close range, but that it is a bolt-on to the Assault weapon type. It feels a little quicker to resolve if it you roll more dice, then discard the misses before rolling damage, rather than rolling a pool, discarding the misses, then adding back additional dice for the extra-hits-on-sixes.

I also like the idea of Dakka being a competitive thing. E.g. for every 5 models in a unit/if a unit is above half-Strength, all Dakka weapons in that unit can make an additional attack.

Jarms48 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


4th edition bolter armed Marine was 15pts, it killed 0.33 Ork boyz a turn at 13-24' range. At 12' range it killed 0.66 boyz
9th edition bolter armed Marine is 18pts, it kills 0.37 boyz at 24' range, and on turn 2 it kills 0.44

4th edition bolter took 3 Marines (45pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (6pts) or 2 (12pts) at half range. That is a 0.13ppd and 0.26ppd
9th edition bolter takes 2.7 Marines (48pts) to kill 1 Ork boy at 24' range (9pts) or 2.25 Marines (40.25pts) on turn 2. That is a 0.18ppd and 0.223ppd

So your standard MARINE bolter has gotten noticeably more points effective against a regular Ork boy as we have progressed in newer editions. So you wanting more dmg for your standard bolter is an argument based on wanting a unit noticeably more powerful than any iteration its been since the 4th edition at least.

The Ork codex was terribly done. They should go back and change nearly the whole thing. Dakka weapons should be a weapon ability like Plague Weapons. Make shootas assault 2 again, then make Dakka a bonus hit on 6’s. Deffgun could be Heavy 3, Dakka. Big Shoota assault 4, Dakka.

Yup. It's honestly atrocious. I play Orks and Harlequins... guess which army is shelved right now? fething lazy ass gw making horrible codexes.

Despite the "JuSt DiScUsS iT wItH yOuR oPpOnEnT" crowd, that doesn't work. If we tweak the rules for Orks and I win, people (and by people I mean Imperium players) are going to say that it was because the house rules made them overpowered.

I actually think R24 S4 AP-1 D1 guns would be fine, the lore says they have good armour penetration qualities, no change to Intercessor bolters. 2W Marines are cool. Armour of Contempt, AP-1 Choppas, Drukhari karate and Flayer claws is silly.

 Dysartes wrote:
...you are aware that Jarms just picked three weapons to use as examples, right, rather than listing every weapon from the Codex? Sheesh.

If Jarms meant the whole codex I think he would have said to add the ability to all units instead of making a weapon type like plague weapons, a bonus that does not apply to all weapons.

I think I prefer that Dakka be more shots at close range, but that it is a bolt-on to the Assault weapon type. It feels a little quicker to resolve if it you roll more dice, then discard the misses before rolling damage, rather than rolling a pool, discarding the misses, then adding back additional dice for the extra-hits-on-sixes.

I just think that Orks should have spiky damage, more often underperforming or overperforming instead of having steady mediocre damage.

Spiky damage for horde factions often ends with the damage not being spiky at all, because when you take 60+ shots the spike damage flattens out at the avarge.

Orks should probably be like Skaven, where the guns aren't reliable, but on the flip side it packs a punch. It would fit the whole brutish and ramshackle theme.
Right now that doesn't seem to really be the case, its just a constant stream of mediocre damage.

Ork guns should probably lean more towards the shorter ranged side too, to support an aggressive playstyle. Maybe a buff to accuracy at closer ranges.

Why Orks don't have shotguns everywhere is perplexing to me, you'd think Orks would absolutely love having a big, ugly looking boomstick that can double as a club.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...you are aware that Jarms just picked three weapons to use as examples, right, rather than listing every weapon from the Codex? Sheesh.

If Jarms meant the whole codex I think he would have said to add the ability to all units instead of making a weapon type like plague weapons, a bonus that does not apply to all weapons.

He did say to go back and revisit the whole Codex, just before his three example cases.

Equally, there will be weapons where I can see Dakka not applying to - even ignoring melee weapons, you run into things like Burnas or Zzap Guns which don't seem like a fit for a Dakka rule.

 vict0988 wrote:

If Jarms meant the whole codex I think he would have said to add the ability to all units instead of making a weapon type like plague weapons, a bonus that does not apply to all weapons.

They were just examples. Lol. You're overthinking it.

 Dysartes wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...you are aware that Jarms just picked three weapons to use as examples, right, rather than listing every weapon from the Codex? Sheesh.

If Jarms meant the whole codex I think he would have said to add the ability to all units instead of making a weapon type like plague weapons, a bonus that does not apply to all weapons.

He did say to go back and revisit the whole Codex, just before his three example cases.

Equally, there will be weapons where I can see Dakka not applying to - even ignoring melee weapons, you run into things like Burnas or Zzap Guns which don't seem like a fit for a Dakka rule.

Dakka should really just apply to automatic weapons for obvious reasons.
I like the idea of DDD, but not how it works design wise.
The first iteration of DDD was clunky to use because orks have to roll a lot of dice, and DDD added more dice rolling.
the second iteration of DDD tried to fix that, but as a consequence made ork shooting a little weaker because they're still hitting 33% of the time, an extra die won't fix that.

What they should do is go for more of an abstraction route rather than making the player roll more dice and just say "the closer you are the greater your hit chances (to the point it becomes guaranteed), because orks are firing off so many rounds that if they're close enough something's going to get hit"

That should also encourage an aggressive play style for orks, which is what you want because orks are supposed to be about aggression and getting stuck in.

Of course, if they go that route then some weapon stats would have be tweaked.

Karol wrote:
All nice and good, until the ork players stop using ork boys, so being better at killing them doesn't matter. Right now the basic stuff to kill is a light vehicle, a monster or something else multi wound etc. And for that other armies basic weapons are stronger and better.

So in essence your (as in Karol not the community as a whole) argument isn't that bolters aren't good enough vs the target they were designed to kill (orkz, Eldar, Small nidz, IG etc) its that since the game has gotten so deadly/durable not many are taking those things anymore and therefore your guns need to be better at killing "light vehicle, a monster or something else multi wound etc"

And @Dudeface: yeah, a bolter without the rules benefits that are used by 90% of the units that take bolters wouldn't be as good as a Shoota. Its almost like comparing a weapon system on its own without including the basic profile/rules it has intrinsically is stupid and not a valid argument and is instead just moving goal posts around to make one side look better/worse than the other.

 vict0988 wrote:
If Ork Boyz were 7 pts should bolters be changed to S5? If the answer is no then maybe you can understand why some people find your math on pts-efficiency irrelevant to the topic. Try comparing how many slugga Boyz vs shoota Boyz are needed to kill 10 SM, I think that might be a more fruitful discussion. Or Assault Marines vs Tactical Marines to kill 10 Boyz or a Trukk.

We were discussing bolters specifically and i made the point that they are more deadly than ever compared to prior editions, i then showed the math to prove it and then compared the bolters progression edition over edition to another basic infantry weapon I am intimately familiar with, a shoota.

Now, if you want to get into specifics of units, IE Ork Boyz going to 7ppm compared to Marines than we can have that debate but it isn't relevant to this topic. Start that thread and i'll gladly post my opinion with some statistics and analysis to support my position.

SemperMortis wrote:

And @Dudeface: yeah, a bolter without the rules benefits that are used by 90% of the units that take bolters wouldn't be as good as a Shoota. Its almost like comparing a weapon system on its own without including the basic profile/rules it has intrinsically is stupid and not a valid argument and is instead just moving goal posts around to make one side look better/worse than the other.

I disagree, I think it's quite immersion breaking. I understand that game balance requires every aspect from weapon to special rules to unit capabilities to be examined, but how the ideal balance is reached is also very important. It also better handles those edge cases where non-marines are using bolters as well. Against Orks, a Bolter in the hands of a Guardsman is no better than a Lasgun in the hands of a Guardsman, and that just feels wrong.

So in essence your (as in Karol not the community as a whole) argument isn't that bolters aren't good enough vs the target they were designed to kill (orkz, Eldar, Small nidz, IG etc) its that since the game has gotten so deadly/durable not many are taking those things anymore and therefore your guns need to be better at killing "light vehicle, a monster or something else multi wound etc"

That is not my argument. That is how 9th started. Remember what was the first top tier army in 9th ed, a tier above all other armies in the game? Including those that had an update 9th codex. It was harlequins doing drive by attacks from open topped vehicles with their basic weapon being a fusion weapon. If you start the game like that, and the only progress it with other armies, then it doesn't matter what I think or feel about the game. It is a GW design choice for 9th ed to make basic guns very powerful. I didn't write the rules for ad mecha guns, for shuriken stuff eldar have, I didn't make liqufires crazy. And for some armies where the basic trooper became a light vehicle or a monster this became even more obvious. A rapid fire bolter with -1AP is a gun, it is not great it just is. At the same time, most marine weapons did not get updated. Autocanons, lascanons, rocket launchers etc all really bad this edition. But similar weapons for other armies were made different. Lascanons doing d3+3 dmg, lifquifires, weapons that combined normal damage with spill over MW etc.

On top of that, in marine case, they are not cheap enough to be able to run shoting and mele at the same time, on different units. They could do it at the end of 8th, but not in 9th aside for a short lived aggresor based build from salamanders, which GW stomped the living hell out of. So if marines can't out shot their opponents, they have to auto melee them, which means they need either under priced range options , like attack bikes were and probably will be again now with AoC being huge for them or they need their models to be able to do both melee and shoting at above avarge level on same units. And as not everyone likes to buy more models just to play their old army, I can imagine that marines would rather see their bolter improved, then lets say be told that AoC and a small points drop the new primaris land speeders are a great range option for them, and that to fix their army now they just need to buy 2-4 of them.

SemperMortis wrote:

And @Dudeface: yeah, a bolter without the rules benefits that are used by 90% of the units that take bolters wouldn't be as good as a Shoota. Its almost like comparing a weapon system on its own without including the basic profile/rules it has intrinsically is stupid and not a valid argument and is instead just moving goal posts around to make one side look better/worse than the other.

Again, where is bolter discipline or doctrines part of the bolters profile or rules? Where are doctrines for 3 armies that can take bolters, where are bolter discipline for 2 of them.

The point is the bolter is a cross codex stand alone profile which is the singular fact and point of the thread you can't comprehend.

I want citation that 90% of bolter armed units are loyalist Marines, because even they don't take bolters due to auto bolters and bolt rifles being better base.

Ok, for those who want better tac marine bolters,
One word: deathwatch.
I guess since 8th they kinda fethed the faction up a ton, but if you want your good bolters, there you go.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ok, for those who want better tac marine bolters,
One word: deathwatch.
I guess since 8th they kinda fethed the faction up a ton, but if you want your good bolters, there you go.

I don't want to play Deathwatch?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ok, for those who want better tac marine bolters,
One word: deathwatch.
I guess since 8th they kinda fethed the faction up a ton, but if you want your good bolters, there you go.

I don't want to play Deathwatch?

And I don’t want to play Death Guard, but when I mention that my Nurgle Daemons need more shooting, I get told to take Plagueburst Crawlers and whatnot.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ok, for those who want better tac marine bolters,
One word: deathwatch.
I guess since 8th they kinda fethed the faction up a ton, but if you want your good bolters, there you go.

I don't want to play Deathwatch?

And I don’t want to play Death Guard, but when I mention that my Nurgle Daemons need more shooting, I get told to take Plagueburst Crawlers and whatnot.

Well I'm not surprised your army feels limited if you're choosing to use 1/4th of a niche codex. It's sorta related but there's a lot more going on there.

I mean someone could also say to me "Just use Primaris", because I'm using Firstborn only, and therefore limiting myself within my own book. I at least recognize that I'm choosing my position here.

But also there's a momentum of setting/precedent here. Marines are known to favor the use of bolters, whereas Nurgle Daemons are not famed for their ranged capabilities.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ok, for those who want better tac marine bolters,
One word: deathwatch.
I guess since 8th they kinda fethed the faction up a ton, but if you want your good bolters, there you go.

I don't want to play Deathwatch?

I mean me neither since they kinda invalidated most of my army since 8th .
GW’s gonna GW.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ok, for those who want better tac marine bolters,
One word: deathwatch.
I guess since 8th they kinda fethed the faction up a ton, but if you want your good bolters, there you go.

I don't want to play Deathwatch?

And I don’t want to play Death Guard, but when I mention that my Nurgle Daemons need more shooting, I get told to take Plagueburst Crawlers and whatnot.

Likely because it should be Codex: Nurgle rather than daemons & death guard

Karol wrote:

So in essence your (as in Karol not the community as a whole) argument isn't that bolters aren't good enough vs the target they were designed to kill (orkz, Eldar, Small nidz, IG etc) its that since the game has gotten so deadly/durable not many are taking those things anymore and therefore your guns need to be better at killing "light vehicle, a monster or something else multi wound etc"

That is not my argument. That is how 9th started. Remember what was the first top tier army in 9th ed, a tier above all other armies in the game? Including those that had an update 9th codex. It was harlequins doing drive by attacks from open topped vehicles with their basic weapon being a fusion weapon. If you start the game like that, and the only progress it with other armies, then it doesn't matter what I think or feel about the game. It is a GW design choice for 9th ed to make basic guns very powerful. I didn't write the rules for ad mecha guns, for shuriken stuff eldar have, I didn't make liqufires crazy. And for some armies where the basic trooper became a light vehicle or a monster this became even more obvious. A rapid fire bolter with -1AP is a gun, it is not great it just is. At the same time, most marine weapons did not get updated. Autocanons, lascanons, rocket launchers etc all really bad this edition. But similar weapons for other armies were made different. Lascanons doing d3+3 dmg, lifquifires, weapons that combined normal damage with spill over MW etc.

On top of that, in marine case, they are not cheap enough to be able to run shoting and mele at the same time, on different units. They could do it at the end of 8th, but not in 9th aside for a short lived aggresor based build from salamanders, which GW stomped the living hell out of. So if marines can't out shot their opponents, they have to auto melee them, which means they need either under priced range options , like attack bikes were and probably will be again now with AoC being huge for them or they need their models to be able to do both melee and shoting at above avarge level on same units. And as not everyone likes to buy more models just to play their old army, I can imagine that marines would rather see their bolter improved, then lets say be told that AoC and a small points drop the new primaris land speeders are a great range option for them, and that to fix their army now they just need to buy 2-4 of them.

And how many of my Ork gunz got a buff bud? That isn't a valid argument for why bolters need a buff.

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

And @Dudeface: yeah, a bolter without the rules benefits that are used by 90% of the units that take bolters wouldn't be as good as a Shoota. Its almost like comparing a weapon system on its own without including the basic profile/rules it has intrinsically is stupid and not a valid argument and is instead just moving goal posts around to make one side look better/worse than the other.

Again, where is bolter discipline or doctrines part of the bolters profile or rules? Where are doctrines for 3 armies that can take bolters, where are bolter discipline for 2 of them.

The point is the bolter is a cross codex stand alone profile which is the singular fact and point of the thread you can't comprehend.

I want citation that 90% of bolter armed units are loyalist Marines, because even they don't take bolters due to auto bolters and bolt rifles being better base.

So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

And @Dudeface: yeah, a bolter without the rules benefits that are used by 90% of the units that take bolters wouldn't be as good as a Shoota. Its almost like comparing a weapon system on its own without including the basic profile/rules it has intrinsically is stupid and not a valid argument and is instead just moving goal posts around to make one side look better/worse than the other.

Again, where is bolter discipline or doctrines part of the bolters profile or rules? Where are doctrines for 3 armies that can take bolters, where are bolter discipline for 2 of them.

The point is the bolter is a cross codex stand alone profile which is the singular fact and point of the thread you can't comprehend.

I want citation that 90% of bolter armed units are loyalist Marines, because even they don't take bolters due to auto bolters and bolt rifles being better base.

So again, instead of admitting you are wrong you go with the pedantic argument "PROVE ITS 90%!". Bud the most common bloody faction in the game is Space Marines, if you don't want to admit that then just say it so I can put you on ignore since your blinders are far to thick to be removed.

They're the most popular and common faction, they're not 90% of models on tables with bolters though. I note again you've gone to outrage and off palming to ignore that loyalist Marines aren't taking stock bolters or the fact it is a game spanning wielder detached weapon profile.

I'll leave this because until they have "heretic bolter", "astartes bolter", "sororitas bolter" and "militarum bolter" I dont think you'll ever acknowledge 3 of those 4 exist.