Switch Theme:

Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?  [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
Been Around the Block




 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.

And people are saying that because the Shuriken Catapult gained 6" range and some AP, the primary Marine weapon totally needs a boost too.

I'm just wondering what Guardians gained to keep their relative power level to Marines. Tau Fire Warriors? Necron Warriors?
Well, my uninformed opinion (I never played Tau), it looks like Fire Warriors gained since 3rd edition:

Photon grenades for free (used to be +1 point per model that removes the bonus attack for charging, now a stratagem that reduces charge roll and -1 to hit), -2 points per model (was 10/ea, and 20 for the sergeant), squad size 10 from 6-12, all can exchange for Pulse Carbine instead of half of them (Pulse Carbine goes from Assault 1 to Assault 2 and +6"), option for support weapon and drones. Advance and Shoot plus reroll 1s on some ranged attacks during rounds 1-3 (Mont'ka), Fall Back and Shoot(at -1) and additional hits on some ranged attacks on rounds 3-5 (Kauyon). Plus whatever their Sept does for them.

So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones, Advance/Fall Back and Shoot depending on the turn, reroll 1s to wound or extra hits depending on the turn, at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.

Seems like some decent benefits and a points reduction, not an increase. Marines went up 20% in points (18 from 15) and Fire Warriors went down 37.5% in points (11 to 8). 90 points of 3rd edition Tactical Squad is 6 wounds, 10 wounds in 9th (66% increase). 80 points of 3rd edition Fire Warrior is 7.2 wounds, 10 wounds in 9th (39% increase). For not getting a second wound, they certainly feel like they came close.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

You’re also factoring in subfaction and faction buffs.

Marines can also, for instance, fall back and shoot, if they’re Ultras. They also then count as not moving if they don’t advance or fall back for turn two and optionally turn three. They also have easy access to RR1s to-hit and to-wound, potentially RRAll, potentially +1 to-hit and wound…

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re also factoring in subfaction and faction buffs.

Marines can also, for instance, fall back and shoot, if they’re Ultras. They also then count as not moving if they don’t advance or fall back for turn two and optionally turn three. They also have easy access to RR1s to-hit and to-wound, potentially RRAll, potentially +1 to-hit and wound…
I'd argue that I didn't include any Subfaction and you are.

So what is Bolter Disciple, Shock Assault and Doctrines if not a 'main faction' buff that they have gained since 3rd edition? I didn't include anything from subfaction (Sept), just main faction rules. Space Marines are a little different, since there the main faction (Space Marines), subfaction (Chapter) and sub-subfaction (Successors to Chapters).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 01:20:51


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Kaied wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
You’re also factoring in subfaction and faction buffs.

Marines can also, for instance, fall back and shoot, if they’re Ultras. They also then count as not moving if they don’t advance or fall back for turn two and optionally turn three. They also have easy access to RR1s to-hit and to-wound, potentially RRAll, potentially +1 to-hit and wound…
I'd argue that I didn't include any Subfaction and you are.

So what is Bolter Disciple, Shock Assault and Doctrines if not a 'main faction' buff that they have gained since 3rd edition? I didn't include anything from subfaction (Sept), just main faction rules. Space Marines are a little different, since there the main faction (Space Marines), subfaction (Chapter) and sub-subfaction (Successors to Chapters).
Rules on the datasheet itself.

Marines just have more of them. Hell, a squad of White Scars Intercessors (not Assault ones-the shooty ones) can one-round an Imperial Knight in melee. It requires a shedload of buff stacking, but it’s absolutely obscene that that’s even possible with rolls short of deific, let alone on average rolls.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote:
So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote:
So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.

As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




SemperMortis wrote:

Yes, I also feel like my Orkz should go to -1 to wound and our choppas should become AP-2, for no increase in points of course. z

Being facetious aside, if this was Warhammer: Space Marine I would be all for it, but since this is Warhammer 40k and there are other factions in the game...no, feth no.

Since 4th Edition, hell, since 6th edition, Marines have DOUBLED their RoF at max range, they have gained +1 attack on charge turn, they have DOUBLED their wounds, and now they ignore -1AP. They have done all of that for a massive price hike of... 3pts. Compare that to any other factions basic troop choice and get back to me with the results.


Orks is a bad example. They basically need an entire new codex at this point. They’re overpriced, lack synergy between units, don’t have many good builds, and their faction abilities are pretty meh.

So it isn't a balance option against the rest of the game, its specifically because Space Marines are now harder to kill for Space Marines that Space Marines want Space Marines main weapon to be buffed to get -1AP so that on a Space Marine Tac turn it goes to AP-2 and the Space Marine can hurt other Space Marines more effectively than the Space Marine can currently hurt Space Marines.

There is nothing remotely balanced about upgrading Bolters to AP-1 without a price hike, and giving Intercessors a price cut because Tacs get better is just ridiculous. An intercessor currently out shoots a Tau firewarrior pt for pt and can beat Ork choppa boyz in CC if they get to swing first.


AP-1 bolters doesn’t just buff marines. It buffs Sisters, Guard, and Custodes who all have bolter options. Regular Battle Sisters are trash, but with AP-1 they’d be better into non-AoC armies and it also indirectly buffs Divine Guidance which could be used to push bolters to AP-2 against AoC armies.

I also didn’t say there wouldn’t be any point nerfs. GK would obviously require some being an entire army of stormbolters. Intercessors don’t get cheaper because Tacticals get better, they get cheaper because no-one takes bolt rifles or stalker bolters. Everyone takes assault bolters.

It also kills some tactical play for the Marine player. In prior editions the rule was "shoot the punchy and punch the shooty". These days Marines can often just outshoot the shooty and outpunch the punchy.


Bolter armed marines aren’t doing the killing. They’re just sitting on objectives or tax to take the actual viable units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 03:45:13


 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 JNAProductions wrote:
Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote:
So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
Yeah, that is what I said. Both weapons got +6", one of the (free) options got twice as many shots, the other (free) option got -1 AP. Actually, they didn't get them for free, but at a discount since their points went down.

 JNAProductions wrote:
As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

Arguably, comparing 3rd edition charge to Shock Assault isn't much of an upgrade... everyone got +1A on charge in 3rd. So Marines basically gained +1A when charged, or Heroic Intervention with Shock Assault. I'd argue that Armor of Contempt is a Faction buff that for some reason is being shown as a Datasheet buff on various online resources. The dataslate does not add the keyword to any datasheet directly at all, it piggy-backs off the Adeptus Astartes Faction keyword. So... like definition of a Faction Buff. So if AoC is being taken into account, the Mont'ka/etc also should be.

What happens if we give the old Tactical Marine the same treatment as Fire Warriors? So we end up with 1W Marines without Shock Assault/Combat Doctrines/Bolter Disciple, but 12 ppm and either an 24" Astartes Shotgun or a 30" -1AP Bolt Rifle? Cheaper than Scouts(which are 14 ppm) but with better weapons and 3+ save, but not Elites and don't have SA/CD/BD. Is that fair? I think they would end up being auto-takes because they are cheap.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 06:32:27


 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




So quick reminder to people: this thread was incepted before AoC was even a thing, nobody expected them to actualy buff durability over offensive power. So the argument isn't moot but it also wasn't made with AoC in the picture, it's definitely a different situation now.

Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles. You wouldn't argue multimeltas get extra AP and fire twice in guard because eradicators carry them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:
Orks is a bad example. They basically need an entire new codex at this point. They’re overpriced, lack synergy between units, don’t have many good builds, and their faction abilities are pretty meh.


That sounds like you're saying that's a bad example because it proves his point too well.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Hecaton wrote:
That sounds like you're saying that's a bad example because it proves his point too well.


It doesn't. Orks as a codex is arguably the worst 9th edition by far. Terrible internal balance, no synergy, actually lost playstyles, didn't even get custom cultures. The latter is a joke for what's the most diverse faction around.

This below is a better comparison:

Kaied wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Kaied wrote:
Sure, whatever. Just the datasheets then.
Kaied wrote:
So, essentially, Tau Fire Warrior gained 6" on both weapons, double the shots on one of their weapons, -1 AP on the other weapon, option for support weapon and two drones ... at essentially -3 points per model to be similarly equipped.
VS
 Insectum7 wrote:
Marines have gained a wound, an attack in the first round of combat, extra AP depending on the turn, an extra bolter shot at 24", and immunity to the first point of AP.
At +3 points per Marine vs -3 points per Fire Warrior.
+6" Range and +1 Shot OR +6" Range and -1 AP. Gaining options means very little when those options are things you pay points for.
Yeah, that is what I said. Both weapons got +6", one of the (free) options got twice as many shots, the other (free) option got -1 AP. Actually, they didn't get them for free, but at a discount since their points went down.

 JNAProductions wrote:
As compared to +1 Wound, +1 Attack round one of combat, extra AP on turn 2 and potentially 3, an extra shot at 24", and reduces all AP by one to a min of zero.
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

Arguably, comparing 3rd edition charge to Shock Assault isn't much of an upgrade... everyone got +1A on charge in 3rd. So Marines basically gained +1A when charged, or Heroic Intervention with Shock Assault. I'd argue that Armor of Contempt is a Faction buff that for some reason is being shown as a Datasheet buff on various online resources. The dataslate does not add the keyword to any datasheet directly at all, it piggy-backs off the Adeptus Astartes Faction keyword. So... like definition of a Faction Buff. So if AoC is being taken into account, the Mont'ka/etc also should be.

What happens if we give the old Tactical Marine the same treatment as Fire Warriors? So we end up with 1W Marines without Shock Assault/Combat Doctrines/Bolter Disciple, but 12 ppm and either an 24" Astartes Shotgun or a 30" -1AP Bolt Rifle? Cheaper than Scouts(which are 14 ppm) but with better weapons and 3+ save, but not Elites and don't have SA/CD/BD. Is that fair? I think they would end up being auto-takes because they are cheap.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

EviscerationPlague wrote:

You'd rather keep a rule that makes no sense than just have AP-1 on Bolters?


Yes. AoC makes much more sense that AP-1 bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:


Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles.


It's one of the main reasons why AP-1 on bolters would be a catastrophe.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 07:39:58


 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Blackie wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

You'd rather keep a rule that makes no sense than just have AP-1 on Bolters?


Yes. AoC makes much more sense that AP-1 bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:


Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles.


It's one of the main reasons why AP-1 on bolters would be a catastrophe.


In what way would it be a catastrophe? Chaos marines are hardly known for their shredding bolter fire, loyalist Marines tend to use intercessors for bolter duty because their guns are better, guard have them dotted through the army but not in any volume to ruin anyone's day and sisters might finally have a use for the bolter wielders rather than just being ablative wounds for special weapons.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Dudeface wrote:


In what way would it be a catastrophe? Chaos marines are hardly known for their shredding bolter fire, loyalist Marines tend to use intercessors for bolter duty because their guns are better, guard have them dotted through the army but not in any volume to ruin anyone's day and sisters might finally have a use for the bolter wielders rather than just being ablative wounds for special weapons.


CSM suffer from having an old codex, not AP0 on their most basic weapons. I'm pretty sure they won't need AP-1 bolters as soon as they get their codex. 2nd wound that is currently missing is much more important.

It would be a catastrophe since lethality is already too high in 40k, it should be reduced not increased and bolters are the basic weapon for several units from multiple armies. SM and sisters don't need to be more lethal, CSM need a whole new codex.

 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Blackie wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


In what way would it be a catastrophe? Chaos marines are hardly known for their shredding bolter fire, loyalist Marines tend to use intercessors for bolter duty because their guns are better, guard have them dotted through the army but not in any volume to ruin anyone's day and sisters might finally have a use for the bolter wielders rather than just being ablative wounds for special weapons.


CSM suffer from having an old codex, not AP0 on their most basic weapons. I'm pretty sure they won't need AP-1 bolters as soon as they get their codex. 2nd wound that is currently missing is much more important.

It would be a catastrophe since lethality is already too high in 40k, it should be reduced not increased and bolters are the basic weapon for several units from multiple armies. SM and sisters don't need to be more lethal, CSM need a whole new codex.


Ok, to highlight this from the leaked rules for chaos, they're getting doctrines with exploding 6's. Currently the game is proliferated with high AP damage 2+ weapons, those same weapons kill 1 marine per shot now at 12 points, they'll kill 1 marine per shot at 18 points (assumingly) in the new codex. That aside, their firepower from bolters will go down overall, there's 50% less bolters being fired and 13% more hits going through or if you like 180 points now is 20 hits, in the new book for 2 turns it'll be 15 hits. So no, a new chaos marine book isn't going to fix the bolter for chaos, what it will do is make the marine holding it potentially more durable an/or better in melee.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

It doesn't matter if it "doesn't fix the bolters". If CSM end up a solid army with the new codex then job's done. If they are going to be more durable and/or better in melee, then better bolters on top of that might be problematic.

My point is that armies like SM or sisters doesn't need to be more killy. So they don't need better bolters. If bolters get buffed then something else need to be toned down. Same for chaos.

And I'm bringing bolter guys anytime with my full firstborn SW. Even a 300 points vehicle which fires boltgun rounds actually.


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Kaied wrote:
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

I care little about points.

Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Blackie wrote:
It doesn't matter if it "doesn't fix the bolters". If CSM end up a solid army with the new codex then job's done. If they are going to be more durable and/or better in melee, then better bolters on top of that might be problematic.

My point is that armies like SM or sisters doesn't need to be more killy. So they don't need better bolters. If bolters get buffed then something else need to be toned down. Same for chaos.

And I'm bringing bolter guys anytime with my full firstborn SW. Even a 300 points vehicle which fires boltgun rounds actually.



Good for you that you're happy they're not great and don't care that they suck, whilst you use an army that does actually get ap-1 bolters for 2 turns?
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Dudeface wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
It doesn't matter if it "doesn't fix the bolters". If CSM end up a solid army with the new codex then job's done. If they are going to be more durable and/or better in melee, then better bolters on top of that might be problematic.

My point is that armies like SM or sisters doesn't need to be more killy. So they don't need better bolters. If bolters get buffed then something else need to be toned down. Same for chaos.

And I'm bringing bolter guys anytime with my full firstborn SW. Even a 300 points vehicle which fires boltgun rounds actually.



Good for you that you're happy they're not great and don't care that they suck, whilst you use an army that does actually get ap-1 bolters for 2 turns?


Yes, AP-1 for two turns is very powerful and it helps balancing an army that doesn't have lots of power creep since it's entirely based on 3rd-7th edition models. Sisters for example are much better as a faction, even without the bolter doctrine.

But I'd use those models anyway though, I could go more elite but I like playing 40ish power armour marines so they'd stay even if they had flat AP0 bolters and bolt pistols.

 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Insectum7 wrote:
Kaied wrote:
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

I care little about points.

Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?


That’s your problem. Even in 3rd edition 10 marines were at least 50% more points than fire warriors. It’s not a fair comparison. From memory a fire warrior was 9 or 10 points, marines were 15 or 16. So weighed fairly it should be at least 15 fire warriors against 10 marines.

- Tau: That’s 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 1.66 dead marines.
- Marines: If the marines go first then that’s 6.66 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 dead fire warriors.

What’s not being considered here is that Tau had longer range and the boards were both bigger and had less terrain. So with good positioning or use of movement those Tau could get 2 rounds of shooting before the Marines even get a chance to retaliate.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Jarms48 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Kaied wrote:
For +3 points. So more expensive. Fire Warriors got buffs to their weapons and got cheaper. Not +1W each, but 38% cheaper, which is effectively 38% more durability by point. +1W but +3 points is a 66% increase in durability. 38% compared to 66% is a lot closer then expected.

I care little about points.

Take 10 Fire Warriors vs 10 Marines. How do they fare against each other in 3rd? How about now?


That’s your problem. Even in 3rd edition 10 marines were at least 50% more points than fire warriors. It’s not a fair comparison. From memory a fire warrior was 9 or 10 points, marines were 15 or 16. So weighed fairly it should be at least 15 fire warriors against 10 marines.

- Tau: That’s 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 1.66 dead marines.
- Marines: If the marines go first then that’s 6.66 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 dead fire warriors.

What’s not being considered here is that Tau had longer range and the boards were both bigger and had less terrain. So with good positioning or use of movement those Tau could get 2 rounds of shooting before the Marines even get a chance to retaliate.


Which is why marine armies had to be flexible and careful rather than just Orking across the board firing from the hip.

Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"

Special Operations units in the modern day are elite because of their expertise and capability, not because that can tank more shots than King Kong and throw semi-trucks around like Godzilla.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"


But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.

And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 13:02:14


 
   
Made in us
Poxed Plague Monk





And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.


I agree. It feels weird to say this about one of my favorite settings in fiction, but the lore might need to be changed, though that word may bring in too much of an extreme feeling. My friends have started to like WHFB more for its consistency, and how armies are portrayed being similar to how they play, at least in 6th edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 13:09:56


Setek: "My people shackled the stars, and broke mortality when the species you sprang from had barely left the slime pools it spawned in. Our wars burned reality, and the dominion of our kings is without limit. The ground you tread on is not yours; it is ours. "

Ahriman: "The Necrontyr; the sleeping ones"

Setek: "That name is not ours. Why give a name to totality?" 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Blackie wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:

You'd rather keep a rule that makes no sense than just have AP-1 on Bolters?


Yes. AoC makes much more sense that AP-1 bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote:


Also, bolters aren't marines, I know a large number of people in this thread assume bolter = loyalist space marine, but it isn't. A bolter is one of few universal game profiles.


It's one of the main reasons why AP-1 on bolters would be a catastrophe.

> Giant exploding projectile gets ignored by a thick leather jacket on basic line infantry
> Being so angry your armor somehow ignores Plasma more

You're not being honest.
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"


But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.

And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.


I'm sorry but what about elite means they can't be approachable and simple to play? An elite faction is simply one that's often outnumbered and relies on greater abilities of the army or models to compensate for the lack of numbers. That's very literally what marines are in the fluff, they're generalists who are fairly decent at everything and fairly survivable hence (should) pay a premium for the pleasure of it but are always outnumbered an running as spearheads of attacks.

Elite:
it's nothing to do with how hard the army is to play, that would be how elite the player is.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd argue Custodes are the go-to starter army now.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Dudeface wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"


But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.

And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.


I'm sorry but what about elite means they can't be approachable and simple to play? An elite faction is simply one that's often outnumbered and relies on greater abilities of the army or models to compensate for the lack of numbers. That's very literally what marines are in the fluff, they're generalists who are fairly decent at everything and fairly survivable hence (should) pay a premium for the pleasure of it but are always outnumbered an running as spearheads of attacks.

Elite:
it's nothing to do with how hard the army is to play, that would be how elite the player is.


So how does 40k abstract "quality, rank, or skill"?

Keep in mind that equipment (saves, offensive output) isn't on that list. Neither is endurance (toughness) or strength (strength).

About all you have are Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill...

What I am saying is that 40k doesn't have the required abstractions to make your troopers feel "elite/highly skilled/high quality/high ranked" on the tabletop.

Why does a Boltgun being AP-1 help Marines be more high skilled, highly ranked, or high quality?
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy





The point is that in a wargame that running a vastly smaller force, even if the few guys you have are vastly more powerful, should put you at a disadvantage that you have to overcome with tactical ability and general skill. To make marines more interesting and actually play more like marines they should be less beginner friendly. Beginner friendly imo would be guard, you have a lot of guys, the roles are clear cut, and there’s nothing crazy going on.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Consider the difference between, say, the US Army ranger and the US Army in 40k.

Regular IBCT guys hit on a 4+, Army Ranger guys hit on a 3+... and what? The rangers ignore modifiers when making combat attrition tests? Lol.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/25 16:44:41


 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Brass Scorpion of Khorne




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Marines should be a hard to play army, but a badass army when played well. That's "elite"


But the point is marines can't be a real elite army, like custodes or harlequins for example.

And that's because they're the most popular faction, hence they must be easy enough to play for kids and new guys that start the hobby. Elite armies are for veterans. That's why they're jack of trades and master of none, or at least that's what they should be, despite the lore. It makes sense perfeclty, and it's actually the lore that might be too silly and needs to be put in check.


I'm sorry but what about elite means they can't be approachable and simple to play? An elite faction is simply one that's often outnumbered and relies on greater abilities of the army or models to compensate for the lack of numbers. That's very literally what marines are in the fluff, they're generalists who are fairly decent at everything and fairly survivable hence (should) pay a premium for the pleasure of it but are always outnumbered an running as spearheads of attacks.

Elite:
it's nothing to do with how hard the army is to play, that would be how elite the player is.


So how does 40k abstract "quality, rank, or skill"?

Keep in mind that equipment (saves, offensive output) isn't on that list. Neither is endurance (toughness) or strength (strength).

About all you have are Ballistic Skill and Weapon Skill...

What I am saying is that 40k doesn't have the required abstractions to make your troopers feel "elite/highly skilled/high quality/high ranked" on the tabletop.

Why does a Boltgun being AP-1 help Marines be more high skilled, highly ranked, or high quality?


The gear, the stats are "qualities" and you will note quality is a metric it identifies. If you're a human at s3 and that s4 dude has tank rounds bouncing off him, can punch through walls, crush skulls in his hands, hit targets you can't even see with a mini rocket launcher. You're gonna think "wow that guys way better than us". They're high skilled, armed with quality tools and guard officers usually defer rank to them.

So what do you define as an "elite" 40k force then?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: