Switch Theme:

Proposed "fix" to Bolt Weapons  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Now obviously there's a lot of controversy for how we make some of the most basic weapons in 40k more appealing. Rather than adding Strength or AP, which leads to to power creep due to how other armies work and half the armies having them. So my simply fix I've brought up is:
If this weapon gets a 6+ on the wound roll, the targeted must reroll any successful save from this weapon.

It isn't extreme or anything and makes Lt.s more appealing for the grunt. Thoughts? Not extreme? Too extreme?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now obviously there's a lot of controversy for how we make some of the most basic weapons in 40k more appealing. Rather than adding Strength or AP, which leads to to power creep due to how other armies work and half the armies having them. So my simply fix I've brought up is:
If this weapon gets a 6+ on the wound roll, the targeted must reroll any successful save from this weapon.

It isn't extreme or anything and makes Lt.s more appealing for the grunt. Thoughts? Not extreme? Too extreme?


A bit extreme. Adds another unnecessary layer of dice off.

Alternatively in my opinion, going with your idea of "crit chance" on natural rolls of 6 - 'If you roll a 6 on to wound roll, the shot is resolved at -1 AP' wound integrate itself more smoothly into the system without adding another dice roll. Other armies already have this 'critical strike' element built into their basic weapons, like eldar.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 skchsan wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now obviously there's a lot of controversy for how we make some of the most basic weapons in 40k more appealing. Rather than adding Strength or AP, which leads to to power creep due to how other armies work and half the armies having them. So my simply fix I've brought up is:
If this weapon gets a 6+ on the wound roll, the targeted must reroll any successful save from this weapon.

It isn't extreme or anything and makes Lt.s more appealing for the grunt. Thoughts? Not extreme? Too extreme?


A bit extreme. Adds another unnecessary layer of dice off.

Alternatively in my opinion, going with your idea of "crit chance" on natural rolls of 6 - 'If you roll a 6 on to wound roll, the shot is resolved at -1 AP' wound integrate itself more smoothly into the system without adding another dice roll. Other armies already have this 'critical strike' element built into their basic weapons, like eldar.

That said, I was trying to keep it more unique compared to straight AP benefits.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Yeah, making Bolt weapons be similar to the Eldar Shurikan weapons would work a little better. Roll a 6 to wound and it's resolved with an additional -1 ap.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That said, I was trying to keep it more unique compared to straight AP benefits.
Yes I understand, but it seems like too much for a run-of-the-mill weapon of the grimdark future. Bolters are the MP5's of 40k.

Nearly all armies have access to bolter-like weapon (or similar equivalent), not to mention bolters are pretty much the benchmark ranged weapon of the game.

While I do agree that it needs a slight bump like the chansword upgrade in 8th, but not to a degree where it begins to compete with other paid for weapons or becomes a 'valid choice'.
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

 skchsan wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That said, I was trying to keep it more unique compared to straight AP benefits.
Yes I understand, but it seems like too much for a run-of-the-mill weapon of the grimdark future. Bolters are the MP5's of 40k.

Nearly all armies have access to bolter-like weapon (or similar equivalent), not to mention bolters are pretty much the benchmark ranged weapon of the game.

While I do agree that it needs a slight bump like the chansword upgrade in 8th, but not to a degree where it begins to compete with other paid for weapons or becomes a 'valid choice'.


In the fluff, bolters are an elite weapon almost exclusively used by elite and rare armies like marines and sisters. On the tabletop they're run-of-the-mill because of the proportion of marine players. Nearly all armies have a s4 weapon, which is bolter-like (given that s4 is it's only real characteristic), plus special rules on top of that. Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Ya know it would probably considered grossly overpowered but personally would rather they on to wounds of 6s cause 2 damage instead of one. representing a shot that is straight up fragging a guy with its explosive tip.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

"I like my codex like I like my women: 10 years old and nearly dead."
-Dark Eldar players prior to 5th Edition.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Desubot wrote:
Ya know it would probably considered grossly overpowered but personally would rather they on to wounds of 6s cause 2 damage instead of one. representing a shot that is straight up fragging a guy with its explosive tip.

Which makes them more useful vs multi-wound models than the singular ones. The question is if that's more necessary.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Rough Rider with Boomstick





London, Ontario

Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.
   
Made in us
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine





 Torga_DW wrote:
Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

Yes, bolters shouldn't be improved to a point where it starts competing with special weapons. Its an issue of the game lacking more gradients - currently, the ranged weapon stats can be roughly broken down into:

S3 - lasgun equiv
S4 - bolter equiv
S5 - gauss equiv
S6 - assault cannon equiv
S7 - autocannon equiv
S8 - melta equiv
S9 - lascannon equiv
S10 - vindicator equiv

On tabletop, like lasguns, bolters are still nonetheless ranged weapon of 'weight of dice.' I feel like the issue with standard-issue boltguns isn't that bolters are bad, but that on tac squad those 10 bolters are tad bit shy of being threatening enough for them to have a presence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 greatbigtree wrote:
Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.

^ This.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/03 21:10:19


 
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

 skchsan wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

Yes, bolters shouldn't be improved to a point where it starts competing with special weapons.


Do you honestly believe, that if slayer's special rule was implemented, people would choose bolters over special weapons? Like say IG squads, if they had an option to buy a bolter as their infantry squad special, they would do that? Not that i think that would happen, but I guess i just fundamentally disagree with your premise - imo bolters are a special weapon, carried by extremely rare special forces that are supposed to make conventional special forces look like boy scouts.


 skchsan wrote:
Its an issue of the game lacking more gradients - currently, the ranged weapon stats can be roughly broken down into:
S3 - lasgun equiv
S4 - bolter equiv
S5 - gauss equiv
S6 - assault cannon equiv
S7 - autocannon equiv
S8 - melta equiv
S9 - lascannon equiv
S10 - vindicator equiv


Most weapons have an equivalent amongst different armies, but since we're discussing infantry it's easier to say:
S4 - infantry weapon equiv
Almost *every* basic infantry weapon is S4, with special rules and/or variations. That's before you consider prices.


 skchsan wrote:

On tabletop, like lasguns, bolters are still nonetheless ranged weapon of 'weight of dice.' I feel like the issue with standard-issue boltguns isn't that bolters are bad, but that on tac squad those 10 bolters are tad bit shy of being threatening enough for them to have a presence.


That's because tactical marines are too expensive to provide weight of dice with their basic shooting. If tactical marines were cheaper, that might be viable. But i don't think anyone wants cheaper tactical marines.

 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine





Eye of Terror

I've been thinking they should be AP-1 all the time. You're firing a tiny rocket that explodes on impact. It should be able to take off some armor with that.

Would certainly make tacticals interesting again.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 greatbigtree wrote:
Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.

I'm actually in agreement the Commisar nerf was too far. Two dice and picking the lowest would be better than what we have now. Or making it optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 techsoldaten wrote:
I've been thinking they should be AP-1 all the time. You're firing a tiny rocket that explodes on impact. It should be able to take off some armor with that.

Would certainly make tacticals interesting again.

Which then steps on the toes of Intercessors (who would only have longer range) and Necron Warriors (as that's the stat of the Gauss Flayer in the first place).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
 Torga_DW wrote:
Am i reading your last part correctly, you don't think bolters should be a valid choice when looking at weapon options? It's a weapon you should be stuck with or avoid, not something you would actually want?

Yes, bolters shouldn't be improved to a point where it starts competing with special weapons. Its an issue of the game lacking more gradients - currently, the ranged weapon stats can be roughly broken down into:

S3 - lasgun equiv
S4 - bolter equiv
S5 - gauss equiv
S6 - assault cannon equiv
S7 - autocannon equiv
S8 - melta equiv
S9 - lascannon equiv
S10 - vindicator equiv

On tabletop, like lasguns, bolters are still nonetheless ranged weapon of 'weight of dice.' I feel like the issue with standard-issue boltguns isn't that bolters are bad, but that on tac squad those 10 bolters are tad bit shy of being threatening enough for them to have a presence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 greatbigtree wrote:
Bolters are such a bog-standard piece of equipment in the rules [not one fart given for fluff] that giving them "special rules" makes those rules entirely non-special. Everyone has it. The bolter IS the baseline ranged weapon in the game.

So if something is fancier than the bolter, it gets special rules.

If something is weaker than a Bolter, it's a Lasgun.

If something is a Pistol that's not a Bolt pistol, if it's weaker it's a lasgun. If it's fancier, it gets rules.


Honestly, 20 years I've been playing this game and I swear if one more person wants fancy rules for the most utterly standard of armaments, I'm going to complain about Commissar nerfs.

^ This.

Have you seen all the Bolter equivalents? They're better and on infantry the same price or cheaper. We can look at them individually though.
1. The Ork Shoota is instead Assault 2 18". While the Bolter has 6" more of range, it's better at the 18"-12.1" mark, and on top of that has the ability to let them advance and shoot. It's a better weapon for that flexibility.
2. The Shuriken Catapult has the same stats but gives AP-3 when wounding on a 6. Strictly better.
3. The Gauss Flayer is the same stats but AP-1. It's also strictly better.
4. The Pulse Rifle is S5 and 30". Once again, strictly better.
5. I'm not actually sure how you got Gauss equivalent here. The Immortal guns are a strictly different animal. The army just doesn't function because of how RP functions at the moment, on top of having nothing special outside that. Differing topic though.

This goes on. Anything worse than that is on cheaper infantry that already win firefights against the Tactical Marine (which has always been discussed at length).
It doesn't even compete with Special Weapons because you're not gonna purchase them as a Special Weapon. It's not filling a niche like anything else. What it's doing is making the bog standard Marine worth taking. There's no weight of dice when the cheapest Bolter is on a 11 point model. There's weight of dice of a S3 weapon on a 3-4 point model though. To put that in perspective, would you rather 1 Bolter for 11 points or 3-4 Lasguns for 12? Exactly.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/03 22:35:35


 
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




@SlayerFan:
A couple of nitpicks:
*Shootas have better gun profiles, but this is significantly offset by the low ballistics skill of the ork shooting it. Being able to shoot after advancing is only so useful when that means you're hitting on 6s.
*Shuriken catapults are superior within 12". They also don't fire at all beyond 12". So you're trading range for (sometimes) better AP. It'as also worth pointing out that units with shuriken catapults also tend to rely on that AP to substitute for their lack of access to portable special weapons. So if you want to hop out of a serpent with a bunch of guardians and need to shoot at some marines, you're doing so without the benefit of a plasma gun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.


I think the crux of the issue here is the disparity between fluff and mechanics. A bolter probably isn't all that unreasonable for its cost, but the wielder is usually a marine, and standard marines don't live up to their hype. I think the primaris marine weaponry has the "feel" that we all expect from bolters based on fluff, but GW is selling primaris as distinct options from regular marines, so... Yeah.

I think my ideal-but-impractical solution is to give normal marines primaris statlines and pretend that primaris marines were just regular marines the whole time. This is probably off-topic, but do we not all just want primaris marines with access to special/heavy weapons and transports?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 00:42:15


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Wyldhunt wrote:
@SlayerFan:
A couple of nitpicks:
*Shootas have better gun profiles, but this is significantly offset by the low ballistics skill of the ork shooting it. Being able to shoot after advancing is only so useful when that means you're hitting on 6s.
*Shuriken catapults are superior within 12". They also don't fire at all beyond 12". So you're trading range for (sometimes) better AP. It'as also worth pointing out that units with shuriken catapults also tend to rely on that AP to substitute for their lack of access to portable special weapons. So if you want to hop out of a serpent with a bunch of guardians and need to shoot at some marines, you're doing so without the benefit of a plasma gun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.


I think the crux of the issue here is the disparity between fluff and mechanics. A bolter probably isn't all that unreasonable for its cost, but the wielder is usually a marine, and standard marines don't live up to their hype. I think the primaris marine weaponry has the "feel" that we all expect from bolters based on fluff, but GW is selling primaris as distinct options from regular marines, so... Yeah.

I think my ideal-but-impractical solution is to give normal marines primaris statlines and pretend that primaris marines were just regular marines the whole time. This is probably off-topic, but do we not all just want primaris marines with access to special/heavy weapons and transports?

I meant to say the Avenger Shuriken Catapult. Should be obvious based off the fact i said it was a Shoota with that bonus, but you can nitpick that if you feel like it.
The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those.

You also overestimate the ability to carry a Plasma Gun because each Plasma Gun and Combi Plasma you buy is another model or two. Marines are not carrying enough special weapons at the troop level that this is a bonus. That's why units like Veterans, Sternguard, and Devastators are strictly better in this manner. Then you just end up with the Bolter dudes as super expensive meat shields FOR those weapons. It doesn't work. Remember how that one guy won the tournament and some of you clamored to it as your proof Tactical Marines were good? Look what happens at the very next two: little to none of them. As I predicted.

We already have a thread on how to fix the Tactical Marine entry itself, which the primary issue is why would you take a Bolter on anything as we partly discovered (on top of the super low damaging weapon count). Even the better Bolt Weapons lack a lot, and really what we need to do is fix these issues without trying to increase Power Creep. That's the goal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
For a game that plays at 40k's scale, bolters really are fine. While handheld SMG style bolters may be the province of the Astartes, Sororitas, and the odd IG noncom, heavy versions are commonplace on almost everything from basic IG infantry to IFV's and tank secondary weapons, and those seem to be fine.

For greater differentiation, play one of the RPG's, but for a game like 40k, that can have hundreds if models in the board, the bolter is largely fine as is.

I actually want this change in the Bolters sisters carry as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 01:13:43


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?


Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.

Victoria est autem vita.  
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Norwich

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.


What about sisters, what about chaos, what about everything else that uses bolters, and space marines are good not because of bolters but in spite of them, tactical squads are usually considered mediocre due to many reasons, one of them is the Bolter.

But that's not why I would want them changed, I want them changed as Bolters poorly represent themselves compared to the fluff as I said in another thread I would like the Bolter tonbecome the short range death machine it should be.

Str4 ap- range 18" rapid fire 3 damage 1 special rule:"mass reactive" any to wound roll of 6+ increase the bootees damage by 1

   
Made in it
Abhorrent Grotesque Aberration




Italy

IMHO bolt weapons are fine as they are. Stormbolters should be more expensive, 4-5 points instead of 2.

Orks 9000
Space Wolves 5500
Drukhari 4700 
   
Made in gb
Bounding Dark Angels Assault Marine






I've been toying with the idea of special rules for bolters for a while. First of all, to those asking "why?" the simple answer is; because they're boring! Bolters are supposed to be rapid firing explosive bolts, yet S4 doesn't really capture that at all. Some people don't like fluffy rules, but the thing is, 40k has always been just terrible when it comes to balance, so fluffy rules are more appealing to me as it's about capturing the character of a unit or weapon. It should still be as simple as possible, just not so simple that it's boring.


The options I see are:
  • Give them AP -1 as standard; simplest option, and would bring parity with Bolt Rifles which are then simply longer ranged. The background just doesn't justify why they should be better at both range and AP anyway, except that GW wants you to toss your current army and goo all of your money all over the new Primaris marines. The downside to this option is that it's probably a bit too powerful.
  • AP -1 vs. cover; toned down version of the first option, causing the AP -1 to only kick on for enemies in cover. The main downside of this is that it diminishes the usefulness of cover against any enemy with a lot of bolters.
  • For each to-Hit roll of 6, roll an extra hit dice; this would give the front-line bolter a small, but useful boost to the number of hits that they inflict, giving a bit more impact against a variety of targets. I quite like this in terms of fluff as it represents a well placed bolt catching others in the same blast, throwing shrapnel etc.

I'm leaning towards the last option personally; it gives you an extra 1/6 shots to roll on average, or an extra 1/9 hits if my math is right, so it's not a big boost, but can combine quite well with a lot of other rules (1's to-Hit re-rolls for example), making the massed bolter more formidable for armies built around a core of tactical marines.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.

1. You didn't answer the question. In fact, you completely ignored it by saying "Well you have this instead!" when those things don't matter. Let's look at those!
2. ATSKNF is useless because nobody is taking squads above 5 dudes.
3. S4 doesn't matter because most of the units are shooting, so they pay for a stat they won't use and, when they do, still aren't mathematically good. Additional strength doesn't matter when you've only got the 1 attack!
4. And we've shown that Tactical Marines are a terrible way to get Special Weapons and heavy weapons because of the cost to do it. If you were an ACTUAL Marine player you'd see that units like Veterans, Sternguard, and Devastators are doing this proliferation of weapons for cheaper and better. Objective Secured is a terrible rule to lose that efficiency.
Plus look at the winning lists! It's Razorbacks and Rowboat. Eliminate one of those and Marines aren't gonna compete.
5. I'd actually take Dire Avengers over a host of units. They have a focused goal and loadout, and are pretty cheap now too. Plus I can get an easy 5++ on them. 17 points was pretty ridiculous, now they're more than reasonable.
Spoken like a true Eldar player that doesn't know how good they've had it for years upon years.
6. The dudes are packaged with the gun. There's a difference between looking in a vacuum and literally ignoring equipment. Bolter Marines are expensive meat shields FOR Special Weapons, and there's not a lot of them to begin with.
7. The Lasgun stays cheap to keep Guard cheap, and we've had Mathhammer demonstrate that Guard infantry comes up ahead in a shootout AND in melee.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






State of Jefferson

It think it's a great idea if ork shootas and sluggas become more appealing by making the target reroll wounds if they hit with a 5 or 6. Fair is fair...
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 doktor_g wrote:
It think it's a great idea if ork shootas and sluggas become more appealing by making the target reroll wounds if they hit with a 5 or 6. Fair is fair...

Orks either need to hit no matter what on a 6 or generate another attack. Or both. I'd be content with both.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Rough Rider with Boomstick





London, Ontario

Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.


It's like a joke that keeps telling itself over and over again.

The Bolter, in the fluff, is an unstoppable killing machine wielded by an unstoppable killing life form inside unstoppable killing armour deployed from a killing pod dropped from killing orbit to kill stuff killed.

But on the table, it's literally to most common weapon that something can be armed with. All ranged weapon rules need to recourse to this baseline weapon. A gauss weapon disintegrates things. It doesn't blast it apart, it turns existence into non existence for matter. Bladestorm, or whatever the rule is called now, represents a molecule thin blade catching a weak point. Ork sluggas fire 2.00 calibre projectiles. The weapon has stats to represent a fictional weapon in an abstract way.

If you gave special rules to a bolt gun, how could you represent the fancy bolt ammo? It takes the concept of a special rule and makes it banal.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Fancy Bolt ammo doesn't get used terribly often, so that's almost a non-issue. Otherwise, Deathwatch already does this.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 greatbigtree wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.


It's like a joke that keeps telling itself over and over again.

The Bolter, in the fluff, is an unstoppable killing machine wielded by an unstoppable killing life form inside unstoppable killing armour deployed from a killing pod dropped from killing orbit to kill stuff killed.

But on the table, it's literally to most common weapon that something can be armed with. All ranged weapon rules need to recourse to this baseline weapon. A gauss weapon disintegrates things. It doesn't blast it apart, it turns existence into non existence for matter. Bladestorm, or whatever the rule is called now, represents a molecule thin blade catching a weak point. Ork sluggas fire 2.00 calibre projectiles. The weapon has stats to represent a fictional weapon in an abstract way.

If you gave special rules to a bolt gun, how could you represent the fancy bolt ammo? It takes the concept of a special rule and makes it banal.


I didn't start this thread. I was just commenting on the marine special ability. Which is losing to IG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...The main thing to take away here is that, if you were an Eldar or Ork player and you had the ability to choose a Bolter over the Shoota and Avenger Shuriken Catapult, you're not going to do it. There's no reason to. Same thing with the Pulse Rifle and Gauss Flayer but those are strictly better and you'd honestly be lying if you said you'd take a Bolter over those...


...Yeah. And if I as an Eldar player had the option to take a Manticore instead of a Night Spinner I would.

Some armies do certain things better than others.. Is this...news to anyone?

You as an Eldar player would take a Bolter over an Avenger Shuriken Catapult?


I, as an Eldar player, accept that Space Marines are getting +1 Strength, Toughness, and save, ATSKNF, and the ability to take special weapons on Tactical Marines for all of a point over Dire Avengers. I, as a Space Marine player, accept that the advantages of being Space Marines mean that my gun doesn't also get to be better.

(Look me in the eye and tell me you'd happily take S/T3 models with a 4+ save for 12pts over S/T4 models with a 3+ save for 13pts. Then it doesn't matter if you like the ASC better than the boltgun, because you can just go play Eldar and take Dire Avengers and get it. No, you don't get the best of both worlds, there's a trade-off inherent in playing the game. You can't have an army that does every single thing better than everyone else. Your gun isn't the greatest in a vacuum. Your dudes are still dramatically more cost-effective than the vast majority of infantry, you've got the best buff characters in existence, and your vehicles pack the most cost-effective firepower outside the Guard book. I suspect you can deal with having boltguns.)

This discussion makes just as much sense as arguing that lasguns are weak and deserve to be buffed for free until they can compete in a vacuum with other small arms, ignoring everything else that makes their platform effective.



They are not more cost effective, because infantry are now space fillers. And marines make TERRIBLE space fillers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/04 17:36:54


 
   
Made in ca
Rough Rider with Boomstick





London, Ontario

Martel732 wrote:

Well, for marines that seems to be losing to IG real good.

I didn't start this thread. I was just commenting on the marine special ability. Which is losing to IG.


This is the refrain that never ends! Yes it goes on and on, my friends. Someone started complaining, not knowing Jacks from Squats, and they'll keep on complaining, forever, to G-Dubs because...

Leave bolters alone. If needs must be, drop the price of a Tactical to bring them in line with other troops, which I'm not advocating, but would be the correct way to balance the cornerstone model in the game.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: