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.

So, like many, I love the fluff of 40k, but find that a lot of it has a... “less than perfect” relevance to the way the game is played.

Now I'm not going to try and insist that all space marines should be movie-space-marines or anything, but a few little items bug me about the rules as they stand. Two rather iconic and widely used items actually:

1. The Chainsword.
-What's wrong:
Seriously? It doens't give you ANY benefit over just using your fists/rifle to pummel your opponent? This is one of the more iconic weapons of 40k and right now the only real thing it does is look cool (which, granted, is a pretty good thing to do!)

-How to fix it:
Pretty easy really. I propose changing it to S: user, AP: 5. That way it at least cuts through some of the worse armor out there. It won't help MUCH but, eh, its something. Alternate idea: S:+1 AP: none...which is similar and really not game breaking I think. Makes you wound more often, but you ARE weilding a chansaw sword so, you know, you should be pretty good at hurting things.

2. The Bolter
-What's wrong:
Well the fluff has this weapon as being a fully automatic rocket laucher that pierces armor and can supposedly “shred a tank” (at least according to one of the novels, I forget which one.) Obviously that can't really be done in game, but the stats as they stand are more in line with an above average shooter. Its not terrible, obviously, but it certainly could stand a minor buff I think.

-How to fix it:
I say give it a “Bolter” special rule (hey: there are already a million other special rules, why not this one?) that says that all rolls to hit of 6 cause an automatic wound regardless of toughness, and add 1d3 to armor penetration rolls. That way we get more wounds, power armor ect still protects against it, and vehicles may have to worry about massed bolter fire (at least weak ones anyway.)

What do you guys think? I'm trying to go with very “minor” fixes here to slightly buff the existing weapons, but not make them overpowered.

The bolter one may be a bit too far, but I'm open to other suggestions!

Fluff doesn't always translate to rules well. Both of these changes would be a buff to some units, while nerfing many others.

Chainswords: it's basically a nerf to anything with 5+ save or worse. Strength +1 is huge, that would make them better than most power weapons against vehicles and all units with a 2+ save.

Bolters: Just no. You gave Bolters Rending, but better. This would make vehicles a lot less durable. Half of the Raptors Chapter tactic is Rending Bolters, but only if they don't move.

Isn't Rending an auto-pen at AP2, or was it changed? It's also worth noting that the rule he proposed isn't really better than Rending- the auto-wound isn't at AP2, and as mentioned I'm pretty sure Rending gives an auto-pen at AP2 on a to-wound/pen roll of "6".

That said, I'm a little bit leary of it. Not only that, but I feel like there's already enough- perhaps even too many- special rules for basic guns that give some kind of auto-wound on a "6". This "Bolter" rule really just reads like a different- worse- flavor of "Gauss".

Which I dislike because it then feels like the guns become more samey.

On Chainswords:

No. Not only is making Chainswords AP5 a pretty big nerf to two armies basic infantry models (IG and DE), but it's also inconsistent as piss. You know those Heavy Chainswords that don't seem to be usable by any unit in the game?

Yeah, those are AP6. Not 5. 6. So Chainswords being AP5 is nonsensical.

+1S is also kind of broken. For one thing, is this just that the Chainsword weapon type is +1S, or is this only Imperial chainswords? Because if the former, then Striking Scorpions are now S5 all the time, and so are any SM models with Chainswords.

Oh, and BA ASM get to be S6 on the charge. Say hello to instagibbing anything T3, all day erryday.

If I was going to fix Chainswords- because I do agree, it's silly that they confer no better a bonus than a simple knife or punch to the face- it would be to give them a pseudo-Shred/PE effect, where any To-Wound rolls of "1" can be re-rolled. It is, after all, a chainblade, so it's going to be causing some substantial damage to squishy meatbag things.

I also, at one time, thought that such a trait for Bolt-weapons of all varieties would be appropriate, but quite frankly I think that leaving both as they are at present would be better. I hate to say it, but it would likely make the game overcomplicated for very little- if any- gain.

Striking scorpions would only be strength 4 as the base strength of the model is 3, unless you meant that they would become strength 5 as a result of the scorpion chainsword bonus stacking with the proposed chainsword changes.

Would making them AP 5 really be that big a hit for horde armies? Outside of specific chapter tactics or codexes that allow tac maries to have chainswords, aren't they mostly only available to sargeants and assault marines? Also, as a dark eldar player, I can't say I've ever really relied on my kabalite warriors' armor save to keep them alive, so I'm not sure I'd feel like I was taking that big a hit.

What if the +1 strength option only applied versus non-vehicles? That way, you'd still be dependent upon krak, power fists, etc. to pop vehicles, but you'd be wounding geq on 2s and meq on 3s. Plus, it would make you a bit scarier against things like Thunderwolves or daemon princes.

The re-rolling to-wound rolls of 1 also sounds good to me except that it lowers the usefulness of chapter tactics and warlord traits that grant preferred enemy.

Simply making all chainswords shred (and leaving their AP as is) would probably be fine if you recosted chainswords appropriately.

As for bolters, I've been wondering lately if marines with a modest price increase and rending bolters would be too terribly broken... >_> What would you think of making bolters be +1 strength on to-hit rolls of 6 reflecting the astartes' excellent marksmanship allowing him to place the shot where it counts. It would make marines slightly better against many vehicles, would beef up drop pod assaults a bit more, wouldn't interfere with Raptor Tactics, and would let you sprinkle T5 and 6 MCs with more effective bolter shots. Keep in mind that there's precedent for strength 5 infantry shooting in fire warriors, and this would be a much watered down version of that.

As a side note, I've been playing with Raptor Tactics for a few games now, and the decrease in shots and mobility actually makes it a bit difficult to justify using the rending profile.

Whiskey144 wrote:
Isn't Rending an auto-pen at AP2, or was it changed? It's also worth noting that the rule he proposed isn't really better than Rending- the auto-wound isn't at AP2, and as mentioned I'm pretty sure Rending gives an auto-pen at AP2 on a to-wound/pen roll of "6".

That said, I'm a little bit leary of it. Not only that, but I feel like there's already enough- perhaps even too many- special rules for basic guns that give some kind of auto-wound on a "6". This "Bolter" rule really just reads like a different- worse- flavor of "Gauss".

Which I dislike because it then feels like the guns become more samey.

On Chainswords:

No. Not only is making Chainswords AP5 a pretty big nerf to two armies basic infantry models (IG and DE), but it's also inconsistent as piss. You know those Heavy Chainswords that don't seem to be usable by any unit in the game?

Yeah, those are AP6. Not 5. 6. So Chainswords being AP5 is nonsensical.

+1S is also kind of broken. For one thing, is this just that the Chainsword weapon type is +1S, or is this only Imperial chainswords? Because if the former, then Striking Scorpions are now S5 all the time, and so are any SM models with Chainswords.

Oh, and BA ASM get to be S6 on the charge. Say hello to instagibbing anything T3, all day erryday.

If I was going to fix Chainswords- because I do agree, it's silly that they confer no better a bonus than a simple knife or punch to the face- it would be to give them a pseudo-Shred/PE effect, where any To-Wound rolls of "1" can be re-rolled. It is, after all, a chainblade, so it's going to be causing some substantial damage to squishy meatbag things.

I also, at one time, thought that such a trait for Bolt-weapons of all varieties would be appropriate, but quite frankly I think that leaving both as they are at present would be better. I hate to say it, but it would likely make the game overcomplicated for very little- if any- gain.

Nope, rending against vehicles actually just adds d3 to your pen roll.

As for Ap5 chainswords, I actually don't see it as being too crazy. Consider first that a power sword is AP3, a power axe is AP2. Now look at the chain axe... AP4. AP5 sword would be matching power weapons. We're going to politely ignore the non-existent heavy chainsword. I do definitely agree that +1 S would be a bit too much though.

Could we possibly do a pseudo-rend on bolters that just gives -1 to AP? So bolters that "rend" are AP4, heavy bolters that "rend" are AP3... etc.

On a 6 to-hit, add an additional automatic hit to the total. This represents the bolter round exploding and catching 2 enemies.

Chainswords gain +1ap for each subsequent round spent in the same combat. This represents their ability to tear armour off and chew through thick hides.

 chrisrawr wrote:
On a 6 to-hit, add an additional automatic hit to the total. This represents the bolter round exploding and catching 2 enemies.

In that scenario, I'd say it makes more sense to just make it pseudo-ID. 6s that aren't saved deal 2 wounds to the model, showing that the shell punches into you then explodes. Bolters aren't grenade launchers that can hit multiple people, they're really small shells that detonate once they punch into you. Bigger than most bullets, smaller than grenades.

 kingbobbito wrote:

 chrisrawr wrote:
On a 6 to-hit, add an additional automatic hit to the total. This represents the bolter round exploding and catching 2 enemies.

In that scenario, I'd say it makes more sense to just make it pseudo-ID. 6s that aren't saved deal 2 wounds to the model, showing that the shell punches into you then explodes. Bolters aren't grenade launchers that can hit multiple people, they're really small shells that detonate once they punch into you. Bigger than most bullets, smaller than grenades.

That's less useful than the proposed rule though. The proposed rule makes bolters slightly better against groups of enemies. The double wound thing only helps against multi-wound targets. Really liked your own suggestions above, by the way.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:

 chrisrawr wrote:
On a 6 to-hit, add an additional automatic hit to the total. This represents the bolter round exploding and catching 2 enemies.

In that scenario, I'd say it makes more sense to just make it pseudo-ID. 6s that aren't saved deal 2 wounds to the model, showing that the shell punches into you then explodes. Bolters aren't grenade launchers that can hit multiple people, they're really small shells that detonate once they punch into you. Bigger than most bullets, smaller than grenades.

That's less useful than the proposed rule though. The proposed rule makes bolters slightly better against groups of enemies. The double wound thing only helps against multi-wound targets. Really liked your own suggestions above, by the way.

Haha, I know it's less useful, I just want things to match the fluff a bit better. The one thing I always liked about 40k cinematics and games was orks literally exploding if a bolter hit them right. I don't really feel that bolters need much of a buff, they're mediocre but at least not bad... I just want them to have some sort of rule that makes them unique. Literally everyone else has something about their guns that makes them stand out... tau are better range and damage, eldar rend, necron has gauss, guardsmen get FRFSRF, orks... well, suck at shooting. Bolters are just the generic middle ground that isn't particularly cool in any way.

I like the idea of just making Bolt and Chain weapons re-roll To Wound rolls of 1. It basically gives them half of the Preferred Enemy rule, and represents their 'tearing through armour and flesh' fluff. It's simple, easy to understand and won't drastically overpower Bolt/Chain weapons whilst still giving them a little edge to compete with Shuriken, Pulse and Gauss weapons.

This is based on what I've read, which isn't a hughe amaount.

Once per game you make a chain sowrd rampage attack:

Against non vehilce units you add D6 to your normal attacks before modifiers, and gain furious charge (simulating a sergenat etc, running head first into an enemy squad while swinging the chain around sword on full power).

Against vehicle units, you swap all you attackes for one, hitting as normal and cuasing a pen hit a 3+. (as if the wielder has climbed upon his foe and putting all his energy into cutting through the armour at a critical point, with all his might).

Just a thought.

 Godeth wrote:
This is based on what I've read, which isn't a hughe amaount.

Once per game you make a chain sowrd rampage attack:

Against non vehilce units you add D6 to your normal attacks before modifiers, and gain furious charge (simulating a sergenat etc, running head first into an enemy squad while swinging the chain around sword on full power).

Against vehicle units, you swap all you attackes for one, hitting as normal and cuasing a pen hit a 3+. (as if the wielder has climbed upon his foe and putting all his energy into cutting through the armour at a critical point, with all his might).

Just a thought.

Cool as that would be, it's probably way too strong for normal marines. That sounds more like the sort of thing you'd see in a movie marine-ish variant codex. Which, for the record, I'd probably be okay with. Much as I like my special and unique eldar snowflakes, having plot armor and Gary Stu power is sort of the marines' thing. Right now they're sort of the "middle of the road" army with balanced troops that are moderately good at a lot of things, but outperformed in many areas by xenos and even chaos. Having a set of rules for marines with a lower body count but much more impressive capabilities would be interesting.

How about Shred USR for bolters and chainswords? AP can be the same. It will be pretty fluffy and not so balance breaking.

You all need to remember that all marines don't come with a chainsword as stock, most have a combat knife. The only squads that do come with them are characters and assault marines (which would give assault marines a bit of a boost).

Also, to double wrap the rule so it isn't open to abuse, enforce WYSIWYG with it. So if a chainsword isn't modelled on the model, then they simply don't get the rule.

The problem with chainsword and bolter apperant weakness on the tabletop comes from a fluff distortion problem not a actual bad representation. 90% of all 40K fiction is Space Marines vs bad dudes in wich the Space Marines of course stop the ennemy rather easily. If you could read more novels, short stories and fan fiction about how other armies are awesome and can also stop any ennmy forces dead in its track, you could start to look at the 40K univers in a very different way. Like Goebels say: «Lie once and you are just a lier. Lie a thousand times and you will be quoted for truth.» (liberal translation).

Bolters are very powerful weapon, but even mini missile launcher looks puny in comparison to the disintagration ray that is a Gauss weapon. It's not even that amazing in comparison to a 100 shot per second shuriken catapult. If I had to pick a weapon I would choose either of these two before the bolter.

The chainsword also compete with mono-edge blades who are in the same departement and close combat theorically also involve some point blank shots made with normal weapons.

These two weapons are ok. They don't need a boost. Those who use them, that's another story.