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.

The Newman wrote:
And Marines really need access to AutoCannons on the basic infantry. They used to be able to take them, no idea why that changed.

I'm not actually sure that basic Marines need to get cheaper, but they definitely shouldn't be paying more than Guard for the same special/heavy weapons. Yes those guns are more efficient but you're already paying for everything that makes that true when you buy the Marine.

And there is no way that GravCannons and MultiMeltas should cost more than LasCannons and Plasma Cannons.

The autocannons were all stolen by Chaos during the Heresy obviously.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And Marines really need access to AutoCannons on the basic infantry. They used to be able to take them, no idea why that changed.

I'm not actually sure that basic Marines need to get cheaper, but they definitely shouldn't be paying more than Guard for the same special/heavy weapons. Yes those guns are more efficient but you're already paying for everything that makes that true when you buy the Marine.

And there is no way that GravCannons and MultiMeltas should cost more than LasCannons and Plasma Cannons.

The autocannons were all stolen by Chaos during the Heresy obviously.

Why would Chaos steal the Autocannons when the Reaper ACs they already had were twice as good for the same points?

The Newman wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
And Marines really need access to AutoCannons on the basic infantry. They used to be able to take them, no idea why that changed.

I'm not actually sure that basic Marines need to get cheaper, but they definitely shouldn't be paying more than Guard for the same special/heavy weapons. Yes those guns are more efficient but you're already paying for everything that makes that true when you buy the Marine.

And there is no way that GravCannons and MultiMeltas should cost more than LasCannons and Plasma Cannons.

The autocannons were all stolen by Chaos during the Heresy obviously.

Why would Chaos steal the Autocannons when the Reaper ACs they already had were twice as good for the same points?

Because they knew they wouldn't get access to Razorbacks and didn't want the loyalists to have Autocannon Razorbacks.

The Newman wrote:

Why would Chaos steal the Autocannons when the Reaper ACs they already had were twice as good for the same points?

Just to be mean, really.

Ork-en Man wrote:
If you gave the big AT weapons a -1 or -2 to hit infantry, that would refocus those weapons on firing at other tanks instead of slaughtering elites. That could give elite infantry a little more breathing room on the battlefield.

That´s a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greyknight12 wrote:
From the view of a longtime GK player, there are 2 primary things hurting elite infantry right now:
1. The 8th ed AP/SV system. Before, when elite models had a 2+ save, they could survive 5/6 of small arms shots directed at them. Terminators used to laugh at heavy bolters and heavy flamers; now they are a credible threat. Up until the beginning of 7th, there wasn’t a lot that was ideal to get through good armor saves. Additionally, elite infantry had the tools to kill other elites: power weapons. Ranged weapons that ignored all armor were rare outside of plasma/melta. I’d argue that the very beginning of 6th was one of the few good times to be a terminator in 40k; power weapons got AP values and grav hadn’t shown up yet. But with AP-1 affecting everyone now, medium grade weapons that are commonly found in most armies wreck elites, vehicles, and light infantry alike.
2. Elite infantry tend to be specialized a little too much. A GK power armored marine puts out a lot of damage, which he pays for...but he dies like any other space marine. Harlequins are even better examples of the glass cannon. On the other hand, “tough” units like terminators pay for durability but put out so little damage that they can be ignored. IMO, Custodes are doing fine precisely because while expensive they put out elite-level damage but also are tough enough to survive under fire (the bikes are perhaps the perfect 40k unit).

Terminators from 3rd onwards don´t laugh at anything but die to small arms fire. It happens so often that it´s not funny anymore.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Ork-en Man wrote:
If you gave the big AT weapons a -1 or -2 to hit infantry, that would refocus those weapons on firing at other tanks instead of slaughtering elites. That could give elite infantry a little more breathing room on the battlefield.

That´s a good idea.

That is a good idea, and there's already precedent in all of the '+1 to hit models with FLY, -1 to everything else' weapons. Although it won't help much if it doesn't get applied to all the multi-shot AP2 D2 weapons.

The Newman wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Ork-en Man wrote:
If you gave the big AT weapons a -1 or -2 to hit infantry, that would refocus those weapons on firing at other tanks instead of slaughtering elites. That could give elite infantry a little more breathing room on the battlefield.

That´s a good idea.

That is a good idea, and there's already precedent in all of the '+1 to hit models with FLY, -1 to everything else' weapons. Although it won't help much if it doesn't get applied to all the multi-shot AP2 D2 weapons.

It'd likely get phrased "+1 to hit Vehicles or Monsters, -1 to hit to everything else" to fit the rule standard if it happened.

Which would make lascannons scary as feck on a Marine platform versus tanks. 2+ to hit, and often buffable to a 2+ to wound?

What if ti was +1 to hit Infantry, -1 to hit Vehicles and Monsters?

Edit, damm, ninja

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Ork-en Man wrote:
If you gave the big AT weapons a -1 or -2 to hit infantry, that would refocus those weapons on firing at other tanks instead of slaughtering elites. That could give elite infantry a little more breathing room on the battlefield.

That´s a good idea.

That is a good idea, and there's already precedent in all of the '+1 to hit models with FLY, -1 to everything else' weapons. Although it won't help much if it doesn't get applied to all the multi-shot AP2 D2 weapons.

It'd likely get phrased "+1 to hit Vehicles or Monsters, -1 to hit to everything else" to fit the rule standard if it happened.

Which would make lascannons scary as feck on a Marine platform versus tanks. 2+ to hit, and often buffable to a 2+ to wound?

The whole reason why the "Fly" stuff has it is that Flyers have the -1 to be hit rule.

Not every Fly unit has the Flyer rules, mind, but there's not really any tanks that natively have a similar thing.

If, say, we made it so that Titanic vehicles or monsters had a -1 to be Wounded from weapons and things like Lascannons negated that? I could see this idea working.

 Blndmage wrote:
What if ti was +1 to hit Infantry, -1 to hit Vehicles and Monsters?

Edit, damm, ninja

Sorry, I used the webway to post first.

Seriously though, it sounds like a solid idea, but I feel like most anti-tank weapons would need a points bump to make them more balanced against vehicles then.

That or we need more shooting modifiers (and I don't mean army based ones but rather like KT to keep the anti-tank from being to powerful first turn (-1 for more than half range, -1 for any part obscured and suddenly they're -1 versus a vehicle on that first turn (assuming cover) but -3 against infantry (again, assuming cover) which would be huge for balancing the shooting game.

That said, it still buffs horde units too so on the flipside, perhaps if a weapon has a S over double or more a target's toughness the damage should spill over so a Lascannon could potentially punch through multiple guys if it hits, making it an anti-horde weapon (at a worse BS than anti-tank) so an army that takes them isn't screwed against a small bug Nid player or Green Tide Ork player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Ork-en Man wrote:
If you gave the big AT weapons a -1 or -2 to hit infantry, that would refocus those weapons on firing at other tanks instead of slaughtering elites. That could give elite infantry a little more breathing room on the battlefield.

That´s a good idea.

That is a good idea, and there's already precedent in all of the '+1 to hit models with FLY, -1 to everything else' weapons. Although it won't help much if it doesn't get applied to all the multi-shot AP2 D2 weapons.

It'd likely get phrased "+1 to hit Vehicles or Monsters, -1 to hit to everything else" to fit the rule standard if it happened.

Which would make lascannons scary as feck on a Marine platform versus tanks. 2+ to hit, and often buffable to a 2+ to wound?

The whole reason why the "Fly" stuff has it is that Flyers have the -1 to be hit rule.

Not every Fly unit has the Flyer rules, mind, but there's not really any tanks that natively have a similar thing.

If, say, we made it so that Titanic vehicles or monsters had a -1 to be Wounded from weapons and things like Lascannons negated that? I could see this idea working.

Not all flyers have -1 to hit, only ones with the Supersonic rule do. And there a lot of non-flyer models with fly as well, so it buffs really well against something like Wave Serpents or Inceptors.

The reason elite infantry are such garbage in 8th is purely because of the changes to AP, the wound chart, and multi wounds/damage.
The wound chart change is a big buff to T3, because they now treat S4 and S5 as the same thing. This is a big nerf to things that are supposed to be good at killing light infantry, like heavy bolters, heavy flamers, etc. This was clearly just done to make the wounding concept easier to remember, without thinking about what it does to these weapons.
The change to AP system is a massive reduction in durability to units that rely on armor saves for their durability. If you look at the math, the better armor you have the more your durability is decreased when AP is introduced. A 2+ save unit takes 100% more damage for each point of AP the wounding weapon has. A 3+ save unit takes 50% more damage per point. A 4+ is 25%, 5+ is 20%, and 6+ is 16% more damage per point. Because there are so any guns with at least 1 AP (pretty much any gun that isn't a basic infantry rifle), this means armor is not a particularly valuable stat, especially armor of 3+ or 2+.
Almost no matter how you look at it, the AP system is broken the way it is currently implemented. As an example, lets look at a heavy bolter. You would certainly think that a heavy bolter should be better at killing light infantry than it is elite infantry, which should be the job of things like plasma. Well, from a durability standpoint, a guardsmen out of cover would have to cost 7.8 points in order for a heavy bolter to kill as many points of guardsmen as it does 13 point marines. Guardsmen would have to cost 7.4 points for a heavy bolter to be just as good at killing them as it is at killing 37 point terminators (SB and power sword, their cheapest variant).
A third issue is wound/weapon damage thresholds, which are a new thing in 8th. Having 1 wound is typically better than paying for 2 wounds at the current prices, because there is a hard counter to having 2 wounds: weapons that do 2+ damage. The only counter to this on 2 wound models is FNP, as it as least lets you waste some of the 2 damage shots by reducing them down to 1, and forcing another 2 damage to finish you off. It isn't until 3 or 4 wounds that you can reliably survive 2 shots from most of the weapons in the game, and not until 5 that you can expect to survive a las cannon more than half the time, and not until 7 that you always take more than one D6 damage weapon to kill. Because pretty much all of the weapons that do 3.5 (the average of D6) or more damage are limited to 1 shot per weapon, 4 wounds is the peak of durability for infantry (i can't think of a 5 wound infantry model but might be forgetting something) and even then enough 2 damage weapons still drop them pretty effectively unless they have FNP. With the emergence of better auto cannon variants, 3 wounds can still be one-shotted by a number of weapons that have fairly high rates of fire, and there are tons of 2 damage weapons out there. The only counter to these weapons on high wound infantry is FNP, which can force them to survive an extra shot, and is why things like blight-lord terminators are actually hard to kill with 2 damage weapons.
All of this means that there is almost always a good weapon to shoot at elite infantry units, and no good weapons to shoot at light infantry.
The main way to fix this would be to increase the cost of a single wound, allow certain units to ignore points of AP, and give out more FNP.

I agree with your arguments, and the general shape of how you present them, but you're assuming GEQ is Guardsman and MEQ is Marine. If the GEQ is a Guardian or Harlequin, the numbers change a lot.

I do agree that AP is to easy to come by compared to how heavily it impacts armor saves.

Another solution might be to have models roll a save for each damage the wound would do to them. This way multi damage from weapons wouldn't roll over to other models, but they would be a lot better at killing models with less wounds than they have damage. And mathematically they'd be just as good at killing things with equal or more wounds, but in a less mathematically swingy way.

wonder if there are other ways to represent "elite" infantry, the main issue seems to be survivability, a heavy bolter will mow down anything T3/4 with a 5+ save just as easily, regardless of the "skill" of the target.

since modifying the "to hit" number gets silly, what about allowing "elite" units to make better usage of cover, or to be able to ignore a certain amount of AP (or even both)

will use Marines as the example, but what if marines could ignore the first point of AP, or enhance their save in cover by 1 pip - deciding when they are fired upon, but before the to hit & damage rolls. representing greater skill as soldiers at avoiding fire.

Same sort of rule to any models in the 10-20 point range before equipment, maybe more expensive stuff getting both effects.

Idea being to make the more expensive infantry more survivable, countering the way the game makes no account of skill of a model when they themselves are being shot at.

Personally would prefer an "is hit on" number ala Flames of War - so more skilled troops are harder to hit, then have the skill of the firing unit impact cover saves (e.g. negating a point or two of cover to represent being better shots), but no difference against troops in the open.

Bharring wrote:
I agree with your arguments, and the general shape of how you present them, but you're assuming GEQ is Guardsman and MEQ is Marine. If the GEQ is a Guardian or Harlequin, the numbers change a lot.

I do agree that AP is to easy to come by compared to how heavily it impacts armor saves.

I don't really like GEQ and MEQ because there usually aren't straight equivalents. I do tend to use imperium units though, as they seem to be the most normal from a stateline perspective, whereas the other factions typically get to start breaking rules or be hyper specialized. If we balance the basic stuff, it's then easier to balance the complex.

Agreed. But I'd suggest caution in specifics, because Guardsmen are widely considered undercosted, and Marines are widely considered overcosted. If you corrected the entire game to bring GEQ/MEQ/TEQ into per-point pairity, the other GEQ is now trash and the other MEQ/TEQ is now OP.

When I think of ideal balance state, I usually start with Marines then Guard myself.

jcd386 wrote:
The reason elite infantry are such garbage in 8th is purely because of the changes to AP, the wound chart, and multi wounds/damage.
The wound chart change is a big buff to T3, because they now treat S4 and S5 as the same thing. This is a big nerf to things that are supposed to be good at killing light infantry, like heavy bolters, heavy flamers, etc. This was clearly just done to make the wounding concept easier to remember, without thinking about what it does to these weapons.
The change to AP system is a massive reduction in durability to units that rely on armor saves for their durability. If you look at the math, the better armor you have the more your durability is decreased when AP is introduced. A 2+ save unit takes 100% more damage for each point of AP the wounding weapon has. A 3+ save unit takes 50% more damage per point. A 4+ is 25%, 5+ is 20%, and 6+ is 16% more damage per point. Because there are so any guns with at least 1 AP (pretty much any gun that isn't a basic infantry rifle), this means armor is not a particularly valuable stat, especially armor of 3+ or 2+.
Almost no matter how you look at it, the AP system is broken the way it is currently implemented. As an example, lets look at a heavy bolter. You would certainly think that a heavy bolter should be better at killing light infantry than it is elite infantry, which should be the job of things like plasma. Well, from a durability standpoint, a guardsmen out of cover would have to cost 7.8 points in order for a heavy bolter to kill as many points of guardsmen as it does 13 point marines. Guardsmen would have to cost 7.4 points for a heavy bolter to be just as good at killing them as it is at killing 37 point terminators (SB and power sword, their cheapest variant).
A third issue is wound/weapon damage thresholds, which are a new thing in 8th. Having 1 wound is typically better than paying for 2 wounds at the current prices, because there is a hard counter to having 2 wounds: weapons that do 2+ damage. The only counter to this on 2 wound models is FNP, as it as least lets you waste some of the 2 damage shots by reducing them down to 1, and forcing another 2 damage to finish you off. It isn't until 3 or 4 wounds that you can reliably survive 2 shots from most of the weapons in the game, and not until 5 that you can expect to survive a las cannon more than half the time, and not until 7 that you always take more than one D6 damage weapon to kill. Because pretty much all of the weapons that do 3.5 (the average of D6) or more damage are limited to 1 shot per weapon, 4 wounds is the peak of durability for infantry (i can't think of a 5 wound infantry model but might be forgetting something) and even then enough 2 damage weapons still drop them pretty effectively unless they have FNP. With the emergence of better auto cannon variants, 3 wounds can still be one-shotted by a number of weapons that have fairly high rates of fire, and there are tons of 2 damage weapons out there. The only counter to these weapons on high wound infantry is FNP, which can force them to survive an extra shot, and is why things like blight-lord terminators are actually hard to kill with 2 damage weapons.
All of this means that there is almost always a good weapon to shoot at elite infantry units, and no good weapons to shoot at light infantry.
The main way to fix this would be to increase the cost of a single wound, allow certain units to ignore points of AP, and give out more FNP.

This is all true. A big part of the problem is that most weapons were just directly converted into the new system, without giving much thought whether they served their intended purpose any more. Not that this worked in previous editions either, midstrength multishot weapons dominated then too, only in somewhat different ways. Though it is almost impossible to even design weapons that are more point efficient against guardsmen than marines under the current system. At least with Primaris marines that is technically possible. And guardsmen being undercosted affects things too.

leopard wrote:
wonder if there are other ways to represent "elite" infantry, the main issue seems to be survivability, a heavy bolter will mow down anything T3/4 with a 5+ save just as easily, regardless of the "skill" of the target.

since modifying the "to hit" number gets silly, what about allowing "elite" units to make better usage of cover, or to be able to ignore a certain amount of AP (or even both)

will use Marines as the example, but what if marines could ignore the first point of AP, or enhance their save in cover by 1 pip - deciding when they are fired upon, but before the to hit & damage rolls. representing greater skill as soldiers at avoiding fire.

Same sort of rule to any models in the 10-20 point range before equipment, maybe more expensive stuff getting both effects.

Idea being to make the more expensive infantry more survivable, countering the way the game makes no account of skill of a model when they themselves are being shot at.

Personally would prefer an "is hit on" number ala Flames of War - so more skilled troops are harder to hit, then have the skill of the firing unit impact cover saves (e.g. negating a point or two of cover to represent being better shots), but no difference against troops in the open.

I think the ideal fix is to give armor two stats: save value, and AP reduction. Save value being 3+ or 4 + like we have now, and AP reduction being how many points of AP it can ignore. Everything in the marine codex would have a AP reduction of 1. This is better in my mind than increasing Marines to 2+ as it only makes them more durable against things with AP. Some units could even ignore two or three points of AP to represent very durable armor. It would also create a middle ground between current armor saves and invul saves, which seems appealing to me.

One of the super common complains is that the Boltgun went from AP5 to AP0, with the suggestion that it should have become AP-1. Personally, I feel that this is the exact wrong direction: there should be less AP out there, not more. Don't forget that almost all the small arms weapons in the game were AP5 - and such a change would mean Marines saving on a 4+ to Splinter weapons!

If you were to do a flat reduce-by-1 of the APs across the game, things might get closer. Although the true tankbuster stuff - most of what's AP-3 or better now - don't need a reduction.

jcd386 wrote:

I think the ideal fix is to give armor two stats: save value, and AP reduction. Save value being 3+ or 4 + like we have now, and AP reduction being how many points of AP it can ignore. Everything in the marine codex would have a AP reduction of 1. This is better in my mind than increasing Marines to 2+ as it only makes them more durable against things with AP. Some units could even ignore two or three points of AP to represent very durable armor. It would also create a middle ground between current armor saves and invul saves, which seems appealing to me.

This is needlessly complicated, they would never do this.

The problem with "AP Reduction" is you make Lasguns the only real way to touch Termies in cover. Imagine coming up to Termies in cover, and blasting them with some AP-2 goodness. They have a 2+. -2 AP becomes -1AP after reduction. +1 from cover. Termie-killer is now no better at killing Termies than a Lasgun!

A flat AP reduction just means ROF is even more king than it is now.

Bharring wrote:
One of the super common complains is that the Boltgun went from AP5 to AP0, with the suggestion that it should have become AP-1. Personally, I feel that this is the exact wrong direction: there should be less AP out there, not more. Don't forget that almost all the small arms weapons in the game were AP5 - and such a change would mean Marines saving on a 4+ to Splinter weapons!

If you were to do a flat reduce-by-1 of the APs across the game, things might get closer. Although the true tankbuster stuff - most of what's AP-3 or better now - don't need a reduction.

Agreed.

Bharring wrote:
One of the super common complains is that the Boltgun went from AP5 to AP0, with the suggestion that it should have become AP-1. Personally, I feel that this is the exact wrong direction: there should be less AP out there, not more. Don't forget that almost all the small arms weapons in the game were AP5 - and such a change would mean Marines saving on a 4+ to Splinter weapons!

If you were to do a flat reduce-by-1 of the APs across the game, things might get closer. Although the true tankbuster stuff - most of what's AP-3 or better now - don't need a reduction.

I kind of feel like they really should pay more attention to what the AoS team is doing.

Boltguns would benefit from a few of the special rules we've seen there--or hell, even just copy/pasting the rule from Galvanic Rifles(wound rolls of 6 result in AP of -1).

Bharring wrote:
The problem with "AP Reduction" is you make Lasguns the only real way to touch Termies in cover. Imagine coming up to Termies in cover, and blasting them with some AP-2 goodness. They have a 2+. -2 AP becomes -1AP after reduction. +1 from cover. Termie-killer is now no better at killing Termies than a Lasgun!

A flat AP reduction just means ROF is even more king than it is now.

Well, I also think cover needs a rework. It doesn't make sense that it currently doesn't help terminators against lasguns at all, helps Marines a ton (50% damage reduction), and barely helps cultists (20% reduction).

I think it should go back to giving a 5++ cover save.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Boltguns would benefit from a few of the special rules we've seen there--or hell, even just copy/pasting the rule from Galvanic Rifles(wound rolls of 6 result in AP of -1).

Such bonus would still be more beneficial against marines than guard.

Bharring wrote:
The problem with "AP Reduction" is you make Lasguns the only real way to touch Termies in cover. Imagine coming up to Termies in cover, and blasting them with some AP-2 goodness. They have a 2+. -2 AP becomes -1AP after reduction. +1 from cover. Termie-killer is now no better at killing Termies than a Lasgun!

A flat AP reduction just means ROF is even more king than it is now.

I think if they let half the units in the game ignore one point of AP, which would create two tiers of each save, and then adjusted points accordingly, giving bolters AP1 would be fine.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Boltguns would benefit from a few of the special rules we've seen there--or hell, even just copy/pasting the rule from Galvanic Rifles(wound rolls of 6 result in AP of -1).

Such bonus would still be more beneficial against marines than guard.

So what the hell do you want then? Do you think you should be able to just mow through squads with no problem?

Because that's what we had prior to this, where AP just flatout disallowed saves. Then it became all about cover and aura invulns.

jcd386 wrote:

leopard wrote:
wonder if there are other ways to represent "elite" infantry, the main issue seems to be survivability, a heavy bolter will mow down anything T3/4 with a 5+ save just as easily, regardless of the "skill" of the target.

since modifying the "to hit" number gets silly, what about allowing "elite" units to make better usage of cover, or to be able to ignore a certain amount of AP (or even both)

will use Marines as the example, but what if marines could ignore the first point of AP, or enhance their save in cover by 1 pip - deciding when they are fired upon, but before the to hit & damage rolls. representing greater skill as soldiers at avoiding fire.

Same sort of rule to any models in the 10-20 point range before equipment, maybe more expensive stuff getting both effects.

Idea being to make the more expensive infantry more survivable, countering the way the game makes no account of skill of a model when they themselves are being shot at.

Personally would prefer an "is hit on" number ala Flames of War - so more skilled troops are harder to hit, then have the skill of the firing unit impact cover saves (e.g. negating a point or two of cover to represent being better shots), but no difference against troops in the open.

I think the ideal fix is to give armor two stats: save value, and AP reduction. Save value being 3+ or 4 + like we have now, and AP reduction being how many points of AP it can ignore. Everything in the marine codex would have a AP reduction of 1. This is better in my mind than increasing Marines to 2+ as it only makes them more durable against things with AP. Some units could even ignore two or three points of AP to represent very durable armor. It would also create a middle ground between current armor saves and invul saves, which seems appealing to me.

Its a pretty similar end result, I wouldn't make it part of the armour though, I'd make it part of the infantry - minor difference but it makes it easier to give say a marine veteran a different capability to a marine, even though the equipment is the same.

Personally would also go back to what Space Marine v1 had, and have "armoured" and "soft" targets and give weapons a different stat line against each, so you can have anti tank thats not automatically good anti elite infantry, and vice versa.

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what the hell do you want then? Do you think you should be able to just mow through squads with no problem?

Because that's what we had prior to this, where AP just flatout disallowed saves. Then it became all about cover and aura invulns.

If bolter is supposed to be a antihorde weapon, it needs more shots, not more AP. Bolt carbine/auto bolt rifle are antihorde guns. I mean they're still more point effective versus normal marines than guard, but everything is.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

So what the hell do you want then? Do you think you should be able to just mow through squads with no problem?

Because that's what we had prior to this, where AP just flatout disallowed saves. Then it became all about cover and aura invulns.

If bolter is supposed to be a antihorde weapon, it needs more shots, not more AP. Bolt carbine/auto bolt rifle are antihorde guns. I mean they're still more point effective versus normal marines than guard, but everything is.

Bolters aren't antihorde weapons. Heavy Bolters are.

A situational point of AP, however, negates the nonsensical argument that yourself and others have put forward that a 5+ save on Guardsmen is "too much".