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.

How about upping bolters to ap4? I'd imagine that'd solve the weakness of them in regards to firewarriors?

The whole problem is and always will be the AP system. When AP3 and better is scarce, Marines are the best army in the game, since they pay very little for their top of the line stats. Likewise their own weaponry largely ignore the saves of their Xenos opponents, so the Xenos are paying for abilities that are simply ignored. However, when AP3 and better is common, Marines are the worst army in the game, since now they pay for abilities that don't do anything. Everyone remember the heavy 3 starcannon spam outrage back in the day that just had to be nerfed so that Marines stay relevant?

To hit modifiers and armour save modifiers fix the problem by letting everyone benefit from everything that they paid for no matter what type of gun is shooting at them. If you pay 20% more points to get a 20% better save, even after the negative modifier you'll still have a better save than if you didn't make the purchase, so it's fair game and now you can actually begin the process or balancing units and their points costs. There is absolutely no balance or game design argument in favour of the AP and cover save systems that exist in 40K right now. 2+ cover saves (essentially invulnerable saves except against very few top armies) can be gained for entire armies at very little cost, while armour saves are generally very expensive per model despite actually being susceptible to AP2 and better weapons.

The fact that you're trying to remedy the situation by creating more imbalance in a fundamentally broken rule set is cute.

More people talking about bolters as if it's just marines using them.

Though it would be amusing to have Sisters blobs firing those 3-shot bolters someone suggested. 120 S4 AP5 shots from a single squad of infantry... at BS4? And they have 3+/6++ armor AND Acts of Faith? Plus the addition of heavy weapons and meltaguns. Fun times!

I think another part of the MEQ issue here is assault being so poor. In a game where the army which shoots best has a huge advantage, it's no shocker to see the top two armies being the ones which throw out the most and best shooting. Likewise in 5e, it wasn't a shock to see the best armies be the ones with the cheapest vehicles and best AT in a system where vehicles were extremely hard to kill. Before, it was no shock to see assault armies be top when the editions favoured assault. It's a general failure to balance all the phases in the core rules, and Space Marines have always overpaid for it. If assault was on par with shooting, SM would be able to shoot orks to death and assault Tau. This is such a bad idea in the current edition that it's almost hilarious. SM have always paid for their armour's ability to not only withstand a good amount of shooting, but also to withstand a good amount of blows in combat. The AP system is, likewise, almost immeasurably broken to the point where 3+ save MCs may as well not exist (with the exception of the Wraithknight, who is only viable due to T8 W6 and jump - its save is almost irrelevant).

S4 SHOULD be good. It should be doing substantial damage to most infantry. The fact it isn't shows us that the designers have lost the plot with infantry balance, which we've seen in every codex which has come out (from Kroot getting dirt cheap infiltrating bolters, to hormagaunts still totting up to 10 points when fully outfitted). You can't just buff the bolter and fix this any more - the entire system would need rebalancing. When Tyranid MCs, a thing which should be feared as nigh-unkillable by small arms in the fluff, are regarded as jokes to everyone, especially Tau, the game needs examining. Locked in combat is now an obviously broken relic of a mechanic and we're still lumbered with it - it's so bad that they had to introduce sweeping advance, which was then so overpowered that they had to make most armies almost totally ignore it. There is no simple fix.

trephines wrote:
How about upping bolters to ap4? I'd imagine that'd solve the weakness of them in regards to firewarriors?

Again way op and would make the heavy Bolter pointless

And making them heavy 2 would seriously tip the scale in the marines favour I mean 10 tactical marines would put out 30 shots and combine that with either IF or UM chapter tactics would seriously hurt !!

Just making them 2 shots would be fine

And no I have said numerous times include every race with bolters

brother marcus wrote:
And no I have said numerous times include every race with bolters

You say that without actually paying attention to what that entails.

There is no simple fix..

Invalidating every single codex and starting afresh with new rules and a Ravening Hordes book that lists the basic units for every army untill a codex is released is a very simple fix. It's also the only fix.

Sadly GW have made their bed with these garbage rules and show no signs of turning back or even admitting a problem exists so what I said is something that won't happen untill GW is under new ownership.

 Therion wrote:

There is no simple fix..

Invalidating every single codex and starting afresh with new rules and a Ravening Hordes book that lists the basic units for every army untill a codex is released is a very simple fix. It's also the only fix.

Oh god, we don't need another 2nd->3rd edition release like that. Jegus H Tapdancing Christ that would be bad. I'd have to wait another TEN fething YEARS to get a real codex and new models...

 Melissia wrote:

 Therion wrote:

There is no simple fix..

Invalidating every single codex and starting afresh with new rules and a Ravening Hordes book that lists the basic units for every army untill a codex is released is a very simple fix. It's also the only fix.

Oh god, we don't need another 2nd->3rd edition release like that. Jegus H Tapdancing Christ that would be bad. I'd have to wait another TEN fething YEARS to get a real codex and new models...

I admit drawbacks exist, and for the record I enjoy 40K no matter what form it takes, but the only way to fix the hundreds of problems that exist is to start afresh.

That said, if a guy has painted and re-painted the same model a dozen times and it's really ugly every single time, I'd ask for a new painter before having it re-painted once again. Hence my remark about new ownership and an entirely new team of professional game designers.

 Melissia wrote:

brother marcus wrote:
And no I have said numerous times include every race with bolters

You say that without actually paying attention to what that entails.

What do you mean like GW releasing an FAQ hat basically goes " okay guys the new stats for bolters are "this" and codex x,y,z must adhere to these changes

Wow that's really hard I don't know how a well paid design team could manage that

 Therion wrote:
The whole problem is and always will be the AP system. When AP3 and better is scarce, Marines are the best army in the game, since they pay very little for their top of the line stats. Likewise their own weaponry largely ignore the saves of their Xenos opponents, so the Xenos are paying for abilities that are simply ignored. However, when AP3 and better is common, Marines are the worst army in the game, since now they pay for abilities that don't do anything. Everyone remember the heavy 3 starcannon spam outrage back in the day that just had to be nerfed so that Marines stay relevant?

To hit modifiers and armour save modifiers fix the problem by letting everyone benefit from everything that they paid for no matter what type of gun is shooting at them. If you pay 20% more points to get a 20% better save, even after the negative modifier you'll still have a better save than if you didn't make the purchase, so it's fair game and now you can actually begin the process or balancing units and their points costs. There is absolutely no balance or game design argument in favour of the AP and cover save systems that exist in 40K right now. 2+ cover saves (essentially invulnerable saves except against very few top armies) can be gained for entire armies at very little cost, while armour saves are generally very expensive per model despite actually being susceptible to AP2 and better weapons.

The fact that you're trying to remedy the situation by creating more imbalance in a fundamentally broken rule set is cute.

Actually I lose most of my marines to weight of wounds, not AP.

brother marcus wrote:
Wow that's really hard I don't know how a well paid design team could manage that

Because you aren't paying attention to the fact that the balance for Blue Marines, Red Marines, Grey Marines, Silver Marines, Spiky Marines, Green Marines, Black Marines, Sisters, and Imperial Guard are very different. Especially the last two.

What sounds like a good idea for one of those factions may in fact break the game for any of the others. Therefor it's best to instead adjust the specific unit stats or special rules while leaving the bolter alone.

If you make bolters Heavy 3/Assault 2, that could very well make Sisters way too powerful, because they can have units of up to twenty as basic infantry. That's 60 S4/AP5 shots at BS4 from a single squad, or 40 while on the move AND THEN THEY ASSAULT.

If you make heavy bolters Heavy 4, that WOULD break the Imperial Guard, which spams HBs like no other army.

And so on and so forth, and that's without even discussing the balance between each of the various colors of marines.

brother marcus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

brother marcus wrote:
And no I have said numerous times include every race with bolters

You say that without actually paying attention to what that entails.

What do you mean like GW releasing an FAQ hat basically goes " okay guys the new stats for bolters are "this" and codex x,y,z must adhere to these changes

Wow that's really hard I don't know how a well paid design team could manage that

I think what the point is for you to look at CSM, SoB, GK, IG, =I=, ect and think about how it would affect them as well.

I have to agree that the bolter seems like it is a problem, but it's really the fact that the meq lists, in general, have too many points wrapped up in defenses that don't work anymore and not enough killy at range.

Martel732 wrote:

 Therion wrote:
The whole problem is and always will be the AP system. When AP3 and better is scarce, Marines are the best army in the game, since they pay very little for their top of the line stats. Likewise their own weaponry largely ignore the saves of their Xenos opponents, so the Xenos are paying for abilities that are simply ignored. However, when AP3 and better is common, Marines are the worst army in the game, since now they pay for abilities that don't do anything. Everyone remember the heavy 3 starcannon spam outrage back in the day that just had to be nerfed so that Marines stay relevant?

To hit modifiers and armour save modifiers fix the problem by letting everyone benefit from everything that they paid for no matter what type of gun is shooting at them. If you pay 20% more points to get a 20% better save, even after the negative modifier you'll still have a better save than if you didn't make the purchase, so it's fair game and now you can actually begin the process or balancing units and their points costs. There is absolutely no balance or game design argument in favour of the AP and cover save systems that exist in 40K right now. 2+ cover saves (essentially invulnerable saves except against very few top armies) can be gained for entire armies at very little cost, while armour saves are generally very expensive per model despite actually being susceptible to AP2 and better weapons.

The fact that you're trying to remedy the situation by creating more imbalance in a fundamentally broken rule set is cute.

Actually I lose most of my marines to weight of wounds, not AP.

That's a codex creep issue and doesn't in any way shape or form make the AP less of a problem than before. Like I said previously, 40K doesn't suffer from just one glaring problem that if fixed would turn the game into a game for strategic masterminds. For example, the S6 and S7 AP- spam issue is a symptom of those types of guns being too cheap, dealing with the light vehicle and flyer spam, and putting a ton of wounds on all types of units while also not caring whether the target has a cover save or not since you're not paying for AP that would get negated by the cover. The best low AP weapons right now are those that ignore cover, meaning Tau, and that's just a symptom of the bad rules for cover.

And don't kid yourself and think that Marines were fine before 6th edition. Many Marine armies were top tier in 5th, but it had very little to do with the basic Marine and absolutely nothing to do with bolters. Their cheap vehicles were extraordinarily points efficient and stuff like Riptides and Heldrakes hadn't come around yet to invalidate the lines and lines of infantry Missile Launchers.

Marine players crying..... This is rich.... You want nice guns give up your ridiculous free rule Atsknf and I'm sure all the Xenos and chaos players won't have an issue, with a bolt gun change, make it ap4 for all I care so you ignore 90% of Xenos armor, then we will hear how you still need more since your just cheaper 1k sons now without the invulnerable.... Wait that's the solution power armor supposed to be the best where's our invulnerable?

DA are 1 Pts less than a marine and not even remotely in the same stat line range and no one complains, marines get the best statline, armor, special rule and only 1 more ppm than a chaos marine.....and we still need to make them better

 Arthas367 wrote:
Marine players crying..... This is rich.... You want nice guns give up your ridiculous free rule Atsknf and I'm sure all the Xenos and chaos players won't have an issue, with a bolt gun change, make it ap4 for all I care so you ignore 90% of Xenos armor, then we will hear how you still need more since your just cheaper 1k sons now without the invulnerable.... Wait that's the solution power armor supposed to be the best where's our invulnerable?

DA are 1 Pts less than a marine and not even remotely in the same stat line range and no one complains, marines get the best statline, armor, special rule and only 1 more ppm than a chaos marine.....and we still need to make them better

ATSKNF isn't even that good anymore. Get with the times. You can't regroup models that have been taken off the board.

Both CSM and C:SM troops are getting rocked.

 Arthas367 wrote:
DA are 1 Pts less than a marine and not even remotely in the same stat line range and no one complains, marines get the best statline, armor, special rule and only 1 more ppm than a chaos marine.....and we still need to make them better

You're correct. Those Marines with bolters don't win games. Heavy weapons, incredible vehicles, giant monsters and mega deathstars with 2++ rerollables win games. Marines aren't much more useful than Kroot. Troops choices and infantry in general is nigh useless for every other task than hiding behind rocks and buildings all game and then rushing the objectives.

As a Sisters player, I disagree with your assertions on infantry being useless.

Maybe you're just not very good at using infantry.

 Melissia wrote:

brother marcus wrote:
Wow that's really hard I don't know how a well paid design team could manage that

Because you aren't paying attention to the fact that the balance for Blue Marines, Red Marines, Grey Marines, Silver Marines, Spiky Marines, Green Marines, Black Marines, Sisters, and Imperial Guard are very different. Especially the last two.

What sounds like a good idea for one of those factions may in fact break the game for any of the others. Therefor it's best to instead adjust the specific unit stats or special rules while leaving the bolter alone.

If you make bolters Heavy 3/Assault 2, that could very well make Sisters way too powerful, because they can have units of up to twenty as basic infantry. That's 60 S4/AP5 shots at BS4 from a single squad, or 40 while on the move AND THEN THEY ASSAULT.

If you make heavy bolters Heavy 4, that WOULD break the Imperial Guard, which spams HBs like no other army.

And so on and so forth, and that's without even discussing the balance between each of the various colors of marines.

Okay I hold my hand up that I don't know any rules for sisters but I never said it should be heavy 3 I think he same stat line but one more shot would be fine.

But I imagine it would treat all marines in the same manner including chaos

And I did mention an astartes class boltgun to separate from guard and the =|=


And seriously stop bringing up ATSKNF it's like the xenos butt hurt card. Even when I play my tau and guard I really don't think yea I could use that rule it's ace

 Melissia wrote:
As a Sisters player, I disagree with your assertions on infantry being useless.

Maybe you're just not very good at using infantry.

Maybe you don't play the right opponents. Or maybe sisters weather 50+ armor saves a turn better. Because you know what? The Eldar wound my BA on the same numbers they wound sisters: a "2".

 Melissia wrote:
As a Sisters player, I disagree with your assertions on infantry being useless.

Maybe you're just not very good at using infantry.

HBMC would be proud. Eventually at every rules related discussion a non-competitive player tries to talk down a competitive player with the millennia old 'use tactics' argument.

The next tournament where people get tabled by quad/triptides, jetseers, serpents, screamerstars, wraiths and scythes and whatnot, you need to be there to tell the losers to use tactics. If you could wear a red GW shirt it would be even better.

OMG! Such WAAC! Much power gamer.

Mathematics >> tactics in a such a limited game.

In starcraft, I can get ahead by getting good baneling hits on marines or some such thing, but it's really hard to get ahead of jetseer or screamerstar. Or even helldrakes with no AA.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe you don't play the right opponents.

Maybe I don't.

So I looked up tourney results. So far, looks like most impressive was Mohile's Necron/Orks, perhaps the top "unbeatable" army of last year. With a battlewagon full of meganobz being the big game changing inclusion from other Necron/Allied lists, I'd say that infantry still have a HUGE place within 40k. If you use them right.

Meganobz aren't "infantry". They are super elites. It's not how you use the "infantry" it's which "infantry" you use. And battlewagons have always been a dubiously cheap source of AV 14. If marines could get a battlewagon, that would be a step in the right direction.

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz aren't "infantry".

They're a kind of infantry.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not how you use the "infantry" it's which "infantry" you use.

Only if you xhoose to use all infantry in the exact same way.

Martel732 wrote:
And battlewagons have always been a dubiously cheap source of AV 14

Amusingly, I've heard plenty of complaints of them being overpriced for what you get.

Martel732 wrote:
If marines could get a battlewagon, that would be a step in the dumb direction.

FTFY

Freaking marine fanboys wanting to rip off and steal the advantages every other faction has until there's no reason to use anything other than space borings.

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz aren't "infantry". They are super elites. It's not how you use the "infantry" it's which "infantry" you use. And battlewagons have always been a dubiously cheap source of AV 14. If marines could get a battlewagon, that would be a step in the right direction.

They are infantry type aren't they?

 Melissia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Meganobz aren't "infantry".

They're a kind of infantry.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not how you use the "infantry" it's which "infantry" you use.

Only if you xhoose to use all infantry in the exact same way.

Martel732 wrote:
And battlewagons have always been a dubiously cheap source of AV 14

Amusingly, I've heard plenty of complaints of them being overpriced for what you get.

Martel732 wrote:
If marines could get a battlewagon, that would be a step in the dumb direction.

FTFY

Freaking marine fanboys wanting to rip off and steal the advantages every other faction has until there's no reason to use anything other than space borings.

Yeah, I play BA. I'm a real fan boy. What exactly are the marine advantages again? Because when I play BA against C:SM, I am not seeing a whole lot. I'm seeing a few units I care about and then a whole sea of crap. Which, of course, is pretty much what the BA look like as well. So it's a lot more even than Eldar face rolling me to death.

All I meant by the battlewagon comment was that the gulf between assault and non-assault is too great and that open topped is a huge advantage, not a disadvantage like I'm sure GW thinks it is. The Battlewagon is incredibly efficient compared to the LR.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I play BA. I'm a real fan boy. What exactly are the marine advantages again? Because when I play BA against C:SM

So marines vs marines, you're surprised that they're samey or something?